From: Chris Ferris Subject: Counterterror Strategy in Israel? Date: 01 Aug 1997 14:18:05 -0400 (EDT) In the wake of the recent, tragic suicide bombings in Israel, have Israeli leaders and members of the Knesset called for the disarmament of Israeli citizens who routinely carry concealed handguns or openly displayed Uzis or M-16s in public? If so, I seem to have missed hearing such public appeals for "gun control" ... oh, I forgot, the Israelis fought (with firearms) to obtain their independence from the British more recently than we did ... they must still know that an armed, patriotic populace is *** an achievement of which to be proud *** ... quite the opposite of our spineless White House supremacists and their shoe shine boys and girls on Capitol Hill. One other thought: I wonder if the suicide bombers 1) waited five days before taking delivery of explosive components 2) went through an "insta-check" when they took delivery of the explosive components 3) dared to purchase more than one bomb per month ... I hope that Schumer and Feinstein are investigating these worrisome possibilities right now, if they are not in NYC shrieking and caterwauling in an attempt to link any Americans who own firearms to the recent shooting and arrest of two bomb makers of "Middle Eastern origin", who, curiously enough, were ratted out to NYPD by one of their own, and just as the heat began to build in D.C. on Charlie Trie, Wu-Wu-Wu-Wu from Macau and other "Wang Jun Gun" buddies of Beijing who were also buddies of Wee Willie Clinton & Company. I wonder if the timing is purely coincidental ... I wonder. Probably, but, then again, we are dealing with Wee Willie Clinton here, and not with Mother Teresa. *** Anything *** is possible, if not probable. Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: Great signature! (fwd) Date: 01 Aug 1997 14:01:09 PST On Aug 1, Bill Campbell, wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This just came in on a usenet posting, and I liked it so much, I thought I would share. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb denying enforcement of the vote. Bill -- A child can go only so far in life without potty training. It is not mere coincidence that six of the last seven presidents were potty trained, not to mention nearly half of the nation's state legislators. -- Dave Barry [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Congressman Joseph Kennedy II (D-MA) Still Taking Incoming Artillery Fire Over Fireworks "Accident" Date: 02 Aug 1997 17:07:38 -0400 (EDT) Text re-entered from THE BOSTON GLOBE, Saturday, August 2, 1997, page B3, Metro Section ______________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT ANGERS REP. KENNEDY'S EX-WIFE By Frank Phillips Globe Staff A month has passed, but the former wife of Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II continues to smolder over a fireworks accident that left their son, Matthew, with a badly burned arm. Sheila Rauch Kennedy had little to say in the immediate aftermath of the July 2 accident. But now she has gone public, telling a TV interviewer that she was "angry" and "terrified" after learning that Matthew had been injured setting off fireworks near the Kennedys' Hyannis Port compound. Rauch Kennedy told Channel 7's Andy Hiller that she blamed her former husband for putting their 16-year-old boy at risk. "It's one thing to take risks with yourself," she said, in the interview. "That's up to him. This is the first time I have really seen him put the children in jeopardy." She added:"If screaming at Joe would make Matt heal faster, or better, or with less pain, I wouldn't be here sitting talking to you. I would be yelling at him." Rauch Kennedy could not be reached by the Globe. In a statement issued by his office in response to the Channel 7 interview, Kennedy said:"As I've said before, this was a mistake and a harsh reminder of how dangerous any firework can be. I am just thankful Matt will be O.K." Rauch Kennedy said the fireworks device that exploded was one with two fuses - too dangerous for use by anyone, like her husband, unlicensed to handle explosives. "His father lit the first one and I think the plan was he (Matt) would light the second one, but it exploded before he lit anything and when it exploded he probably quite smartly jumped into the ocean," she told Hiller. Rauch Kennedy also provided a fuller description of the treatment of the boy's wound. Matt was required at first to go each day to the Shriners Burn Institute in Boston to have his wound cleaned and rebandaged. She said the first diagnosis leaned toward declaring the burns third-degree but settled on second-degree. "He could be blind. His hair got singed," Rauch said. While the congressman was violating state laws controlling fireworks, the state fire marshal, Stephen Coan, has said he will not seek any charges against Kennedy over the accident. ______________________________________________________________________________ COMMENTS: - Judging from Mrs. Kennedy's comments, her son was injured much more severely than The Wizard of Uhs first led the public to believe. Persons with serious burns are treated at The Shriners Burn Institute. - Just where did the Wizard of Uhs procure the explosive device which injured his son? Did he buy it out of state and transport it over a state line into Massachusetts? Did he violate a federal statute if he did so? Inquiring, mature, rational, non-extreme, responsible minds want to know. - The Wizard of Uhs should likely be prosecuted under both state and federal laws. Write to the new governor of Massachusetts, A. Paul Cellucci, to *demand* that Congressman Kennedy be prosecuted, as any ordinary citizen who possessed explosive devices unlawfully and injured a minor would be. Write to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston and ask *when* federal charges are going to be brought against Congressman Kennedy for transporting explosives across state lines and then injuring his son while misusing the explosives. Copy your Congressmen, Senators and local media on any letters which you write. - It is time for the idiotic Wizard of Uhs, who calls gun owners "domestic "extremists" for wanting to possess firearms, magazines and ammunition of our own choice, to eat some tasty crow. Remember that he is about to kick off a run for the office of governor of Massachusetts ... start writing, today! - Save this article, and quote from it the next time any Kennedy opens his or her mouth about "gun control" or "irresponsible gun owners" or "the public health menace of guns", etc. Quote and laugh as you do so. Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Politicians' Selective Reactions to Shooting and Arrest of Alleged Hamas-n-Eggs Terrorist (Bomb-Making) Suspects in NYC Date: 02 Aug 1997 21:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Today's Boston papers had extensive coverage on the backgrounds of the two persons of Middle Eastern origin who were shot and arrested in the middle of a "bomb factory" in a Brooklyn apartment recently. Kodak Moment NYC Mayor Rude E. Giuliani was sticking his face in every camera that moved and was quoted extensively. One comment in the article that stuck in my mind was that NYPD may have found evidence that the suspects were haters of American Jews and that they may have been targeting Jewish Americans. Hmmmmm. Where is Chuckles Schoomer (D-Straight-Outta-Brooklyn), waving his arms and yelling that the terrorists' arms and legs should be cut off before they are tried? Where is the standard post-incident "foaming at the mouth, disarm America now condemnation" on CNN's Crossfire? Where, indeed? Or is Chuckles Schoomer only interested in foaming at the mouth when federal agents arrest some poor 44 year old white male who owns a camo field jacket, a Ruger 10-22 rifle, who once stated that he did not like the IRS, and who calls his neat freak wife an "Organized Melissa" ... Let's watch to see if selective indignation, selective outrage and deafening silence continue as this NYC terrorism case unfolds. Let's watch and see. And let's see if this incident involving *foreign nationals* is used as another excuse to expand the war on so-called "domestic terrorism", Clinton's # 1 "hot button" issue whenever he wants to undermine and dismantle more freedoms and to take away more precious rights (the rkba) which are supposed to be inalienable. Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ______________________________________________________________________________ P.S. Are nobanners and firearmsreg readers aware that an active duty U.S. Army colonel (Special Forces branch) is reported to be serving as the deputy director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Task Force, with FBI credentials, full DOJ clearance, etc. and that "Stonewall Reno" has been telling a concerned U.S. Senator from Iowa to dial 1-800-Pound-Sand when he expressed grave concern about a U.S. military officer from the special operations community being detailed to serve on a federal law enforcement counterrorism task force? Check out the current issue of SOF! This unlawful mixing of soldiers and fed cops could be the preface to "Waco II" or "Return to Ruby Ridge", coming soon to an innocent community, home or "compound" near you. The unmitigated arrogance of the Clinton administration and of *** some *** (few?) "Clintonized" soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines continues to disgust me. I only hope that the majority of the men and women serving their Country will obey their oath of office, to the letter, when the time comes to make a decision. In the meantime, we have to work diligently to convince our Congressman and Senators to get the U.S. military as far away from federal, state and local law enforcement operations as possible. Perhaps starting with the aforementioned active duty U.S. Army colonel serving at the FBI? Contact your Senators and Congressmen today. ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: FirearmsReg: Congressman Joseph Kennedy II (D-MA) Still Date: 03 Aug 1997 07:26:04 -0700 Chris, [...] ACCIDENT ANGERS REP. KENNEDY'S EX-WIFE & Rauch Kennedy said the fireworks device that exploded was one with two fuses - too dangerous for use by anyone, like her husband, unlicensed to handle explosives. [...] Realizing that you are pointing out that Mr. Kennedy is supremely a hypocrite in perhaps more ways than I can imagine, I would caution you about making too much about this incident. On the one hand, as much as I dislike hearing random explosions, and having to clean up after some less than respectful miscreants, I would enjoin you not to play into that ladies hand concerning 'explosive devices', because it can leave all of us with lesser options in the future. Massachuchettes has become the land of the fascist, and the home of the cowardly (no, Walker, I don't include the obviously good people!). Freedom does not ring there, the bell was sunk in concrete a long time ago. That the younger Kennedy has been injured, is perhaps a lesson to be learned - by him. The rest of us should pay no mind except perhaps to serve the example of carelessness to our own children. By crowing about his obvious disregard for the law, and demanding his just comeuppance, we do ourselves no favors. Perhaps we could induce him to review and pronounce the obvious defect of that law, and demand its recision. How is it, that he may be exempt while the rest are subject? ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Date: 03 Aug 1997 19:01:20 PDT [ Maybe ardent supporters of gun rights who belong to the NRA / GOA could do the same thing with HCI: infiltrate and change the policy to pro gun. This is really amusing reading Jack UK News Electronic Telegraph Monday 4 August 1997 Issue 801 Foxhunters sabotage RSPCA by infiltration By Hugh Muir COUNTRY sports enthusiasts have infiltrated the RSPCA to sabotage its opposition to hunting. Internal estimates by the charity's officers and confirmed by the British Field Sports Society indicate that a pro-hunt challenge to its anti-hunting policy from within is gathering pace. Though normal membership has also increased, the infiltration of more than 3,000 country sports enthusiasts has so concerned senior RSPCA officials that they are exploring way of excluding foxhunters or limiting their influence. One option being considered is for the charity to require members to affirm their opposition to "any activity which is considered by the society to involve avoidable suffering to animals". Another would force new members to wait five years instead of the current three before they can be elected to the council. Both suggestions have the support of the wider membership but have failed to win the necessary approval from the Charity Commission, which has to agree all major rules changes. The three working party members have been asked to frame an argument which will convince the Commission to allow a ban on foxhunters on the basis that hunting is cruel and contrary to the society's objects. The working party will also consider if efforts to resist the infiltration have been improperly hampered by the Charity Commission and the society's own officers. The RSPCA has 40,000 members and regards opposition to hunting as a tenet of faith but fears a successful infiltration by committed pro-hunters would make that stance more difficult to maintain. The issue gained impetus last month when Elizabeth Burton, a candidate endorsed by the pro-hunting lobby, was elected to the society's ruling council. Roy Forster, the chairman, whose candidature was supported by the country sports lobby, was re-elected by a surprisingly high margin. For its part, the country sports lobby sees membership as a way of moving the RSPCA away from "animal rights" activism. It says greater emphasis should be attached to traditional animal welfare, which would be compatible with support for country sports. Dr Richard Ryder, a member of the RSPCA's working party and a former chairman, said: "The infiltration seems to be happening because foxhunters feel threatened by the anti-hunting Bill now before Parliament. "As far as we are concerned, they have been able to achieve this level of infiltration because of the advice we have received from the Charity Commission that we were in no position to stop it." Daphne Harris, another council member, said the nature of the society would be changed by a greater influx of hunters. Angela Walder, a former council member and chairman of the RSPCA branch on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent, has threatened the Charity Commission with legal action. She said: "I find the whole thing completely crazy. I am sure Rachman wouldn't have been allowed to join a housing charity. Why should hunters be allowed inside the RSPCA?" Pro-hunters have used circulars and articles in periodicals to alert supporters to the need to join the RSPCA. There was a sustained push before last month's annual general meeting. They have also lobbied the Charity Commission advocating their rights to membership. Mr Forster, a vet, was endorsed by the country sports lobby despite his opposition to hunting because he is nevertheless viewed as a moderate. The battle between the two sides is uncompromising. Among the weapons being wielded by the anti-hunt lobby is the transcript of a secretly taped telephone conversation in which Peter Voute, executive director of the British Field Sports Society, says the drive to win influence within the RSPCA is a long-term one. Email Electronic Telegraph. Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: :o) Some important things to remember......... Date: 04 Aug 1997 07:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Even the government could benefit from this one! Tom >From: Petals9706@aol.com >Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 00:36:04 -0400 (EDT) >To: ILIKEGUNS@aol.com >Subject: :o) Some important things to remember......... > > A Creed to Live By > > Do not undermine your worth > by comparing yourself with others. > It is because we are different > that each of us is special. > > Do not set your goals > by what other people deem important. > Only you know > what is best for you. > > Do not take for granted > the things closest to your heart. > Cling to them as you would your life, > for without them, > life is meaningless. > > Do not let your life > slip through your fingers > by living in the past > nor for the future. > By living your life one day at a time, > you live all the days of your life. > > Do not give up > when you still have something to give. > Nothing is really over > until the moment you stop trying. > > It is a fragile thread > that binds us to each other. > > Do not be afraid to encounter risks. > It is by taking chances > that we learn how to be brave. > > Do not shut love out of your life > by saying it is impossible to find. > > The quickest way to receive love > is to give love; > The fastest way to lose love > is too hold it too tightly; > In addition, > the best way to keep love > is to give it wings. > > Do not dismiss your dreams. > To be without dreams > is to be without hope; > To be without hope > is to be without purpose. > > Do not run through life > so fast that you forget > not only where you have been, > but also where you are going. > Life is not a race, > but a journey > to be savored > each step of the way. > > > > > > "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: Subject: Carol Howe BATF (OK Bombing) informant found innocent Date: 04 Aug 1997 12:47:27 -0500 (CDT) Informant Looks Cautiously Ahead Kelly Kurt Associated Press Writer 8/3/97 Future Looms Large on First Day of Freedom

"There's a debate going on whether I'm a great American hero or whether I'm a conniving terrorist. I think this acquittal is a step -- that people will see things in a different light." -- Carol Howe


Carol Howe no longer had to wear an electronic monitor on her leg Saturday. But she still bore the other glaring reminder of the past three years -- a swastika tattoo on her arm.
"I've tried to have it removed," she said. "It's appalling. It has changed my entire lifestyle. I can't wear sleeveless shirts; I can't go swimming.
"It's so deep because it's homemade."
The 26-year-old found it difficult to shake a few other things on a hot afternoon at her parents' home, one day after being found innocent of making a bomb threat and possessing bomb components.
The jury may have been swayed because she worked as a government informant, but her acquittal cannot take away what Howe said she learned after signing up for the job three years ago.
She testified that she had overheard talk of blowing up federal buildings during her undercover work at Elohim City, a white separatist community in eastern Oklahoma.
Howe said she thought she gave agents information that could have prevented the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people in Oklahoma City.
Maybe now, she said, someone will believe her.
"There's a debate going on whether I'm a great American hero or whether I'm a conniving terrorist," she said. "I think this acquittal is a step -- that people will see things in a different light."
For months now, the daughter of a prominent Tulsa family has had to wriggle her pantyhose on by passing them through an electronic monitoring device looped around one ankle.
She was placed in the custody of her father while awaiting charges on conspiracy, making a bomb threat and possessing an unregistered de structive device.
The jury returned the innocent verdict at 10:20 p.m. Friday, after five days of testimony and 5 1/2 hours of deliberation.
"When I got home, I couldn't even believe it was real," Howe said. "I've been like the government's indentured servant for three years."
It was in 1994 that Howe signed on as an informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. She had received her swastika tattoo a few months earlier during what she portrayed as a short-lived dabble in racism.
The ATF wanted the Howe to focus on a local White Aryan Resistance leader with whom she had once been involved.
She served the government like a soldier, playing the role of a white supremacist, collecting evidence such as bomb-making materials and dutifully reporting what she found out, Howe testified.
That included what she heard at Elohim City.
The defense for convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh had wanted to call Howe as a witness during his trial this spring. The judge ruled her testimony irrelevant.
The issue of Howe's testimony could figure in McVeigh's appeal. She also expects that she will be subpoenaed to testify before an Oklahoma County grand jury investigating the possibility of a larger bombing conspiracy.
"I think there will be more questions than answers."
A government agent testified that Howe was dropped as an informant in March 1995 because of questions about her mental stability. The ATF and FBI briefly renewed her services two months later in hopes that she could assist in the bombing investigation.
But the government said Howe provided no useful information.
Howe maintained that she kept up her cover, especially after learning that the FBI had disclosed her identity in 1996.
On her first day of freedom, however, the future loomed large and intimidating for Howe.
"I had all day to do whatever I wanted. I couldn't figure out what to do," she said. "How do you start over after three years of living one way?"
href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/intro.htm"> Subject: Taxes Date: 04 Aug 1997 11:51:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- National Center for Policy Analysis POLICY DIGEST Monday, August 4, 1997 In Today's News TAXES AND THE WELL-BEING OF CITIZENS That federal taxes have risen over the long-term like a hot-air balloon is undeniable. But figures from the Tax Foundation document the extraordinary rate of increase. * The average American's federal tax bill this year is 3.1 percent larger than last year. * In nominal terms, the per capita tax bill has grown 36.5 per cent since 1992. * It has risen 57.5 percent since 1988 -- and 140 percent since 1980. * The average federal tax burden this year is $5,497. While about 46 percent of federal tax revenues come from the personal income tax, another 36 percent come from payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Due to variations in income, residents of relatively wealthier states pay more in federal income taxes -- but the flow of federal money back to states does not correspond with amounts sent to Washington. * Residents of Connecticut, for example, send an average of $8,304 to Washington per capita but get only 71 cents per dollar back. * On the other hand, Mississippians pay $3,638 on average per year to the federal Treasury -- but for every dollar sent north, the state reaps $1.64 in federal payment. * The District of Columbia gets back $5.59 for every tax dollar paid. * Among the states, New Jersey is the big loser -- with only 69 cents repaid for every dollar sent to D.C. New Mexicans, on the other hand, have the best deal of all among the states -- getting back $1.83 for every dollar in federal taxes. Source: Perspective, "Who Wins, Who Loses?" Investor's Business Daily, August 4, 1997. For more on the Tax Foundation report go to http://www.taxfoundation.org/prfedtaxburden.html **************************************************************************** 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: Animal Infiltration, was Re: Date: 04 Aug 1997 09:00:09 PST It's a thought, but I wouldn't be at all surprized to find that they've got it set up like the ACLU; Leadership candidates have to be approved by the leadership. Like the Eskimo's say, "The lead dog is the only one to get a change of scenery".....:-) On Aug 03, Jack@minerva.com wrote: >[ Maybe ardent supporters of gun rights who belong to the NRA / GOA could >do the same thing with HCI: infiltrate and change the policy to pro gun. >This is really amusing reading > >Jack > UK News > Electronic Telegraph > Monday 4 August 1997 > > Issue 801 > > > > > Foxhunters sabotage RSPCA by infiltration > By Hugh Muir > > > > > > >COUNTRY sports enthusiasts have infiltrated the RSPCA to sabotage its >opposition to hunting. > >Internal estimates by the charity's officers and confirmed by the >British Field Sports Society indicate that a pro-hunt challenge to >its anti-hunting policy from within is gathering pace. Though >normal membership has also increased, the infiltration of more >than 3,000 country sports enthusiasts has so concerned senior >RSPCA officials that they are exploring way of excluding >foxhunters or limiting their influence. > >One option being considered is for the charity to require members >to affirm their opposition to "any activity which is considered >by the society to involve avoidable suffering to animals". >Another would force new members to wait five years instead of >the current three before they can be elected to the council. > >Both suggestions have the support of the wider membership but >have failed to win the necessary approval from the Charity >Commission, which has to agree all major rules changes. The >three working party members have been asked to frame an argument >which will convince the Commission to allow a ban on foxhunters >on the basis that hunting is cruel and contrary to the >society's objects. The working party will also consider >if efforts to resist the infiltration have been improperly >hampered by the Charity Commission and the society's own officers. > >The RSPCA has 40,000 members and regards opposition to hunting >as a tenet of faith but fears a successful infiltration by >committed pro-hunters would make that stance more difficult >to maintain. The issue gained impetus last month when Elizabeth >Burton, a candidate endorsed by the pro-hunting lobby, was >elected to the society's ruling council. Roy Forster, the >chairman, whose candidature was supported by the country sports >lobby, was re-elected by a surprisingly high margin. > >For its part, the country sports lobby sees membership as a >way of moving the RSPCA away from "animal rights" activism. It >says greater emphasis should be attached to traditional animal >welfare, which would be compatible with support for country >sports. Dr Richard Ryder, a member of the RSPCA's working >party and a former chairman, said: "The infiltration seems >to be happening because foxhunters feel threatened by the >anti-hunting Bill now before Parliament. > >"As far as we are concerned, they have been able to achieve >this level of infiltration because of the advice we have >received from the Charity Commission that we were in no >position to stop it." > >Daphne Harris, another council member, said the nature of the >society would be changed by a greater influx of hunters. > >Angela Walder, a former council member and chairman of the >RSPCA branch on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent, has threatened >the Charity Commission with legal action. > >She said: "I find the whole thing completely crazy. I am >sure Rachman wouldn't have been allowed to join a housing charity. >Why should hunters be allowed inside the RSPCA?" > >Pro-hunters have used circulars and articles in periodicals >to alert supporters to the need to join the RSPCA. There >was a sustained push before last month's annual general >meeting. They have also lobbied the Charity Commission >advocating their rights to membership. > >Mr Forster, a vet, was endorsed by the country sports lobby >despite his opposition to hunting because he is nevertheless >viewed as a moderate. The battle between the two sides is >uncompromising. Among the weapons being wielded by the >anti-hunt lobby is the transcript of a secretly taped >telephone conversation in which Peter Voute, executive >director of the British Field Sports Society, says the >drive to win influence within the RSPCA is a long-term one. > > Email Electronic Telegraph. > > > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | > ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | > jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Subject: L&J: IF THE JACKBOOT FITS... (fwd) Date: 05 Aug 1997 07:54:40 -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. --1915762710-951494286-870785680=:13242 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII --1915762710-951494286-870785680=:13242 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Content-Description: Return-Path: Received: from listbox.com ([208.210.124.23]) by sirius.wnstar.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36386U2500L250S0) with SMTP id AAA253 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:47:30 -0700 Received: (qmail 18086 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 1997 03:47:11 -0000 Delivered-To: ignition-point-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 18078 invoked by uid 516); 5 Aug 1997 03:47:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 18068 invoked from network); 5 Aug 1997 03:47:08 -0000 Received: from m1.boston.juno.com (205.231.100.199) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 1997 03:47:08 -0000 Received: (from usafeature@juno.com) by m1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id X{K28741; Mon, 04 Aug 1997 23:42:08 EDT Cc: kkeating@premaonline.com, rush@eibnet.com, c-news@world.std.com Message-ID: <19970804.224040.7390.3.usafeature@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7,16-17,24-25,32-33,44-45,47-48,56-57,68-69,74-75, 82-83,87-88,93-94,104-105,114-115,119-121,125-129 Sender: owner-ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JON E. DOUGHERTY USA FEATURES MEDIA CO. IF THE JACKBOOT FITS... AUGUST 5---A few years ago, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, was crucified by liberal and socialist apologists when he characterized agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as "jackbooted thugs" for a series of heavy-handed and abusive law enforcement tactics, not the least of which was the Waco debacle. So "outrageous" was the claim that lifetime member and former president George Bush--a neocon socialist from way back--resigned in protest, even though it didn't help his re-election bid very much against the untouchable [and indictable] Bill Clinton. Now comes another horror story out of the bowels of Idaho [sound familiar?]; not of the Ruby Ridge type, but certainly conjuring the same level of federal law agency arrogance. Under the guise of improper use of federal funds, armed, vested and jackbooted agents of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] raided the Clearwater County Flood Control Command Center in the townlet of Orofino. That's right; FEMA. Say what? According to published reports, the agent in charge [AIC] was very well practiced in obfuscation, presenting a warrant to County Commissioner Bud Bonner that listed no items to be seized, no reason for the search, and the word "sealed" handwritten in one corner. In essence, the warrant was blank [though it did contain a judge's signature] and the AIC did not explain why FEMA was there or what laws the county had broken. The incident left employees stunned and in tears, and Ron Clay, the mayor of Orofino--whose documents were also seized in similar fashion--angry and resentful. Explaining that all county records are public and can be viewed easily by anyone at any time, Clay denounced the raid as a "storm trooper tactic." Commissioner Bonner, not prone to the "beliefs and methods of constitutionalists and militia groups," said "they [the FEMA agents] did exactly what" those groups have "accused them of doing." So in other words, thanks to the idiocy and blatant unlawfulness of these agents' actions, the federal government has succeeded in creating more people who will most likely be cynical and resentful of all federal agencies from now on. And you thought the Nazi ideal of government died with Adolph Hitler. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution says, in part, "...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." While there may have been "probable cause" for the search, it was not listed on the warrant, and there was no description of what agents were looking for or even where they were supposed to search. That, according to the handwriting on the document, was 'sealed.' There seems to be no limit to the power the federal government is trying to assume over local and state government, as well as the people of this nation. The Constitution sure as hell doesn't prevent these kinds of abuses anymore because you can't find a majority of politicians and federal judges who aren't in the favor or pocket of each other to enforce it. Despite this fact, still there are people who have the audacity and male reproductive organs to claim that it is men like LaPierre are provocative, rebellious and anti-American. Were it not for the few true patriots who still have the guts to call things like they seem them--and draw the ire of the socialists for doing so--most people would probably never even hear of these kinds of obvious abuses. Enough. It's time for some answers to some hard questions. For example, we could start with this one: Why are there armed and jackbooted FEMA agents in the first place? Or BATF agents? Or IRS, Postal Service, or Bureau of Land Management agents? Didn't Congress create the FBI for the purposes of domestic law enforcement? Furthermore, what kind of lunatic authorizes these tactics? Knowing politicians, there is no way a mid- to upper-level supervisor is making these kinds of decisions without some sort of policy--written or unwritten--authorized from the highest sources giving them permission to do so. If a politician is one thing, he is predictably weak-willed and squeamish when it comes to making decisions that could endanger his position. It's also reasonable to ask why is there no outcry from the so-called Justice Department over these obvious abuses of the Constitution? Were they not created to ensure that federal departments, officials and employees practiced the letter of the Constitution? President Bill Clinton can find the time to play golf, fly all over the world, and make apologies for crimes no one alive has commited, but he can't find the time--or the wherewithal--to chastize these agencies and prompt Congress to action over these violations of the law. But then, what could we expect from the consummate socialist? This kind of repressive action by a government has traditionally been taken only by those who fear losing control over their population. That very concept is anathema to US government, since America was born out of a desire to be free from the constraints and lethality of omnipresent government control. Freedom and individuality are enemies of socialism, and if there are true believers in our system of government who don't recognize this behavior as what it is--state-sponsored socialism--then they'd better get a turn-of-the-century history book and do some reading. It will have to be that old; all of the new history books are revisionist pieces of trash. The innocence of the Clearwater County officials before being proven guilty is supposed to be a given under our system of law. In no way does this kind alleged breach of the law justify the tactics used by FEMA--or any government agency, for that matter. Were it not for the fact that taxpayer money was involved, the federal government would have no justification--and thus, no reason--to be in Clearwater County to begin with. If that fact alone isn't a reason to support only those politicians who are fanatical about reducing the size and power of this government, then there is no good reason. As a nation, we may still be some time away from repeating the days of 1861, but if this kind of thick-headed, jackbooted behavior by federal agents doesn't stop, that day will no doubt come again. Then the whole country loses. *** ============================= Jon Dougherty is the associate producer of The Derry Brownfield Show, and editor in chief of the internet e-zine USA Journal Online, a conservative opinion journal located at http://www.derrybrownfield.com/usajournal/index.html. Associate Producer; The Derry Brownfield Show Editor in chief; USA Journal Online Co-host; JD Live! USA Features Media Company To subscribe or unsubscribe, email majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point or unsubscribe ignition-point http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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 --1915762710-951494286-870785680=:13242-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: I'm Outta Here Again! Date: 05 Aug 1997 08:35:11 -0700 Yeeeeeeehaw - gotta go to Portland for the Preparedness Expo this weekend and hopefully drum up some advertising for the paper. What's important about this is that it's an incredibly good excuse yet again to stop by the the Deschutes River for a coupla days on the way and get some kayaking in. And a day or so on the way back :) So, I'll be gone for a few; eagerly looking forward to the 2000+ emails that will be awaiting me upon my return. Y'all have a good one - talk to you soon! - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh Lord, lead us into Your Glory - bathe us in the holy & pure light of Your Spirit; let Your righteous fire burn away all that is in us that is not of You, so that we might worship the Living God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Amen. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Republicans give us more Socialism Date: 05 Aug 1997 12:38:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NY Times August 5, 1997 Our Chance for Healthier Children By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ASHINGTON -- The historic balanced budget bill that the President is set to sign today offers hope that as many as five million uninsured boys and girls will receive the health care they need, from checkups to antibiotics to complicated surgery. As the largest expansion in children's health coverage since Medicaid's creation 30 years ago, the bipartisan legislation could move the United States closer to shedding its status as the only Western industrialized nation that does not provide basic health benefits to all children. Even as we celebrate this progress, we should recognize that passage of a bill, no matter how historic, does not guarantee success. Whether this legislation fulfills its promise depends on how hard we are willing to work in the months ahead. Finding uninsured children who are scattered across the country, and then insuring them, will not be easy. As successful as Medicaid has been, an estimated three million eligible children are still not enrolled, because their parents don't know about the program, are unclear about whether they qualify, are reluctant to accept "government" help or are confused by complex eligibility rules. Millions of other uninsured children have working parents who are employed by businesses that don't provide health insurance or who are low-wage workers unable to afford their share of insurance premiums. Still others lose coverage when their parents lose jobs. For this new bill to fulfill its promise, states first have to agree to participate and build on successful efforts that many have already made. While $24 billion in Federal aid over five years should be a significant incentive, dollars alone may not induce participation across the board. That's why our most urgent task is to educate citizens, especially parents, about what is at stake, and to encourage state officials to join the program and assure adequate benefits for all children. Meeting this challenge will require a joint effort involving the Federal Government, states, localities, advocacy groups, foundations, health care providers, insurers and businesses -- all of whom will have to work to inform families about insurance options for their children. The Federal Department of Health and Human Services, for example, will offer guidance to state officials by helping to interpret key portions of the law and provide technical assistance to states with little or no experience in children's health programs. Health care providers and insurers, who will benefit from a population of newly covered patients, can play a pivotal role in designing high-quality health plans and enrolling uninsured children who come to the hospital or emergency room for care. Finally, states will have to meet the law's requirement that new dollars not be used to replace or supplant existing coverage. Otherwise, the legislation could have the perverse effect of reducing current public and private commitments to children's health. Luckily, many states have already taken the lead in enrolling children in health plans. Florida works through schools to educate parents about signing up. Pennsylvania has adopted outreach efforts that help eligible families find the program best suited to their needs. Minnesota has chosen to use Federal dollars to expand its successful Medicaid program. Parents will have the most significant role of all. They will have to learn about the programs, demand quality benefit packages, enroll their children if they are eligible, and take advantage of the services provided. While this law will not fully achieve the universal coverage that I believe is in the nation's best interest, Americans should be proud that our Government has made another down payment on the President's goal of providing health insurance for all citizens. In the last three years we have also taken other steps to bring better health care to the nation's young people, from passage of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill to the President's successful efforts to increase immunizations, protect Medicaid, restrict tobacco advertising and sales to minors, extend hospital stays for mothers and their newborns, and expand financing for nutrition and education programs for poor women and their children. Now we have a chance to build on these achievements in the most profound way yet: by giving millions of children access to the health care they deserve and by offering them genuine hope for a healthy future. It's an opportunity we can't afford to miss. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company ========================================================================== NY Times August 5, 1997 Beware the Real Agenda By DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV ASHINGTON -- Americans have made it clear that they don't want national health insurance. But the five-year, $24 billion provision in the budget bill to finance medical care for two million children is a move in just that direction. And the way this expansion of benefits is designed makes no economic sense. For every dollar's worth of new coverage, states will wind up spending $1.70. That is because for every 100 uninsured children who enroll in the program, another 70 who now have private insurance are also expected to sign up, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Why? Families that now qualify under the plan's expanded income guidelines may stop buying private insurance because government will pay for the children's health care. Or employers will stop offering coverage, knowing that government is now obligated to do so. The Congressional Budget Office warned about this problem last spring. But in their eagerness to reach a budget deal, Republicans in Congress gave up their initial opposition and voted for the plan anyway. Throughout the year, as the child health plan worked its way through Congress, Republicans insisted that it be structured in the form of block grants to states. This, they argued, would give states the flexibility to experiment. While some states would have simply expanded Medicaid coverage, most probably would have offered no-frills plans that would have discouraged people with access to private insurance from trying to sign up. But advocates of national health insurance complained that the block grant approach would let states use the money for other purposes. More important, they claimed, the no-frills approach implicitly condoned "second class" health insurance. Still, they were prepared to settle for whatever expansion in national health coverage they could get. But the political balance shifted in the President's favor, and the Republicans retreated. They agreed to detailed regulations on how states could spend the child health care money. In effect, they agreed to create another entitlement. For example, each state is required to provide the same benefits for children as Medicaid or large private insurance plans. In many cases, state benefits will be more generous than those private employers offer. Another provision calls for public coverage to be provided to families earning as much as 235 percent of the poverty level, depending on the state. For a family of four, that's almost $38,000 a year. The inefficiency and high cost of the program may not bother advocates of universal health care; they argue that Americans, especially children, deserve to have coverage. But what they don't acknowledge is that this plan will reduce the market for low-cost insurance used by small businesses and the working poor. A 1996 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard found that previous expansions of Medicaid were responsible for about 17 percent of the decline in the number of children covered by private insurance from 1987 to 1992. That study also reported that as many as half of the children who enrolled in expanded Medicaid plans did so because once they became eligible for those programs, their parents lost coverage at work or decided not to buy insurance. The more the Government shrinks the insurance market for low-income people, the less economical it becomes for companies to offer them coverage. Companies either abandon the market or raise their prices. Either way, the number of uninsured people increases -- and so do calls for more Government involvement. Maybe that's the real agenda. But it's a long way from here to there, and in the meantime, this plan will do more harm than good. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company ========================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Scool to Work program in OK Date: 05 Aug 1997 13:22:18 -0500 (CDT) Getting Schooled On School To Work Randy Krehbiel World Staff Writer 8/5/97 Delegates are reassured that the program will help students more than it will hinder them.

There are a surprising number of fightin' words in the educator's lexicon.

J.D. Hoye learned that when she became director of the national school-to-work office in 1994.

"Right away," she says, "I realized a lot of people have a fundamental problem with the word `work.' ''

Then, she said, she realized that about as many people didn't like the word "school."

"What is going on when we have a hard time associating work with education?" Hoye asked.

What was going on was resistance to a national school-to- work program. Some said it was an attempt to slot children into predetermined careers. Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating warned that youngsters might be denied academic opportunity because of school-to-work.

"I even had one woman tell me she didn't like the word `to,' '' Hoye said.

But the rhetoric has cooled. Hoye was in Tulsa on Monday to tell 2,700 delegates to the 1997 Oklahoma Summer Vocational and Technical Education Conference, including state Education Secretary Floyd Coppedge, that the school-to-work concept is going forward.

"We should have called it `education for opportunities,' " Hoye said. "That's what we're talking about -- and it must be for all children."

Hoye said that means school- to-work's principles of applied education should be available to anyone who wants it or needs it -- not, as critics have charged, that vocational education be mandated for anyone.

"The problem is that the question has always been framed as a choice -- vocational education or general education," Hoye said. "People used to be afraid vocational education would take kids away from college. What we are seeing are kids who for the first time are thinking about post-secondary education because they are beginning to understand the importance of these things.

"We know there is a large percentage of students who learn best by hands-on learning. About 30 percent do best with the abstract, lecture format we've always used.

"What's interesting is that those who do best with lectures are not hurt by hands-on instruction. Those who learn best with their hands, though, are almost paralyzed by the lecture format."

Hoye said so-called applied courses, in which students learn by using math and science principles to solve real-life problems, must be as rigorous as the more traditional lecture classes. Applied courses allow teachers to reach students who a generation ago would have given up on school and learned practical applications of math and science in skilled and semi-skilled jobs that did not require high school diplomas.

Those jobs are now almost gone.

"Location and resources will no longer determine the sorts of jobs our people have," Hoye said. "Knowledge and skills of our workers will be the most important factors. How we do as a nation will be determined by the degree to which we educate all of our citizens.

"School-to-work gives students choices."

Choices, however, mean change. That's a fightin' word, too.

"There are people who want the classroom to be a museum to their own past," Hoye told the delegates. "And your profession -- teaching -- is the only one that everybody on the planet thinks they are an expert in.

"It's not enough to set the bar higher. The discussion of how to improve our performance in math and science will fall short if we did not assure everyone a way to get there."

Copyright 1996, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.


Subject: L&J: [Fwd: Robert K. Dornan] (fwd) Date: 06 Aug 1997 07:06:32 -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. --1915762710-121252227-870869192=:8999 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII --1915762710-121252227-870869192=:8999 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Content-Description: Return-Path: Received: from belarus.it.earthlink.net ([204.250.46.99]) by sirius.wnstar.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36386U2500L250S0) with ESMTP id AAA219; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 00:01:49 -0700 Received: from uss-new-orleans (1Cust15.max68.los-angeles.ca.ms.uu.net [153.34.104.15]) by belarus.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20709; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 23:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970805235627.0099f600@vipmail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: amphibious@vipmail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Although I have not received any official updates from Congressman Robert K. Dornan, I am sure many of you have heard about the democratic uproar over the investigations, and the democratic pleading to end the investigations. Remember, when ever a democrat calls out to stop an investigation, there's always something needing an investigation. The Democrats have charged that Bob Dornan is a racist, yet I, his personal friend and web master am hispanic. Something in the wind says that there will be a special election. FEAR NOT, BOB IS BACK!!!! Respectfully yours, Glen 0000,8080,0000"The Amphibious One"

8080,0000,0000"In the beginning of a change, The Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
- Mark Twain 0000,0000,ffffhttp://www.spexusa.com/b1bob http://home.earthlink.net/~amphibious =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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 --1915762710-121252227-870869192=:8999-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [RightNow] Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control (fwd) Date: 06 Aug 1997 07:08:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 05:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: RightNow@MailList.Net Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control by Larry Pratt Executive Director Gun Owners of America Much of this century has been a time when the federal government has ignored the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution. Recent cases decided by the by the Supreme Court indicate that the Justices are beginning to once again take the Constitution and their oath of office seriously. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in the recent Lopez case, "our case law has drifted far from the original understanding ..." of the Constitution. While there were wrong turns before this century, much of the unconstitutional rule from Washington dates back to the Great Depression and its war on crime and war on the bank crisis. There were many unconstitutional theories of government pursued to justify the power grab by Washington. One of the theories was to run an end run around constitutional limitations by entering into a treaty that would require passage of legislation accomplishing what, without the treaty, would have been unconstitutional. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration was an active participant in the Disarmament Conference of 1934. Roosevelt sought Senate ratification of an Arms Traffic Convention but was unsuccessful. Had the treaty been ratified, Roosevelt would have obtained the alleged authority to have Congress infringe on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the treaty powers of Article VI, paragraph 2. Roosevelt then shifted to the unconstitutional, non-existent doctrine of emergency powers to justify enactment of gun control at the federal level. Calling for a War on Crime and Gangsters, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass a series of bills federalizing various crimes and compelling the registration of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and rifles. The formula "War on Whatever" became a decades long federal government weapon for usurping powers not delegated to it. Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation -- not even in a national emergency. One reads the Constitution in vain for such a delegation of authority by "We, the People" through the several states. Very instructive on this point are the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were written by Thomas Jefferson. The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal to criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions declaring that the national law was unenforceable in their states. These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the Kentucky resolutions: ...whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: ...that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself;...each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime delegated to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 3) piracies and 4) offenses against the law of nations. In this context, Jefferson cited the Tenth Amendment as providing a limit to any expansion of authority for punishing crime by the federal government. He quoted it verbatim in the Kentucky resolutions: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Jefferson addressed an argument in the Kentucky Resolutions that we still hear to this day. Namely, that Congress has the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for doing whatever it does. Jefferson described this abuse of the "necessary and proper" clause as going, to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument... A parallel argument is derived from the "supremacy" clause of Article VI. This clause makes treaties and laws passed by Congress the supreme law of the land. Jefferson is pointing out that the federal government is not empowered to take the limited powers it has been granted and convert them to unlimited powers that would destroy the nature of the Constitution. Similarly, the "general welfare" clause in Article I, Section 8 can hardly be a grant of unlimited power of action for the Congress since the section is one limiting the powers of Congress. Jefferson made this particular argument in his opinion against the national bank in 1791. It is the Commerce Clause that has become the most popular pillar of unconstitutional authority for federal gun control. It is interesting to note that in the early part of the twentieth century it was considered necessary to amend the Constitution to ban alcoholic beverages. After the bloating of the Commerce Clause to justify federal involvement in anything and everything following the key 1946 Supreme Court decision Wickard v Filburn, it was not felt to be necessary to amend the constitution to infringe something specifically named and protected -- like arms -- in the Constitution. It is important to understand that the word regulate was applied to commerce in the sense of making regular rather than controlling. In an early case where the Commerce Clause was at issue, Justice Marshall in the Gibbons steamboat case, noted that had the Clause been intended to affect all economic activity, it would not have been included in the enumerated, or limited, powers section of Article One Section 8. Thus, the Commerce Clause affects interstate trade which involves more than one state. The idea was that Virginia could not tax Maryland tobacco to the point that it was kept out of its Commonwealth, and similarly, so that Maryland could not do the same. Justice Thomas put it this way in his Lopez opinion: "...the power to regulate `commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce." Thomas went on to explain that, as an enumerated power, the Commerce Clause of Article I Section 8 cannot be used to justify a universal police power of the federal government: After all, if Congress may regulate all matters that substantially affect commerce, there is no need for the Constitution to specify that Congress may enact bankruptcy laws, cl. 4, or coin money and fix the standard of weights and measures, cl. 5, or punish counterfeiters of United States coin and securities.... Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, Sec. 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of Sect. 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. To put it another way, the Court is now saying that they believe that the Tenth Amendment has to be observed. As Joe Sobran put it in a column in The Washington Times (May 30, 1995): "From now on, the court will be debating basic principles. The federal government will have to walk through the metal detector of the 10th Amendment." In the Wickard case, the Supreme Court agreed with the argument that even though farmer Filburn's wheat was not purchased nor sold in interstate commerce, the very fact that he did not enter interstate commerce negatively affected interstate commerce. With this totalitarian view of the reach of government, there was no limit to what the federal government could do. In many areas of social life, using this distorted interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress stepped up its suffocation of many kinds of private activity. Firearms were no exception. Finally, in the 1995 Lopez decision, the Court has begun to return to constitutional government. Lopez was arrested at a Texas school for having a gun and thus violating the federal prohibition on having a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. The Court held that whatever the policy merits of the measure, the Congress had no authority to enact such a law. (Regarding the policy issue, the most constitutionally consistent approach would be to make it illegal to have a gun at a school for the purpose of committing a violent crime. This would put the burden on the criminal by, in effect, adding an additional penalty to whatever other violent crime was committed. The burden would not go on the decent people, such as students who target practice with teams, parents who are going to or from hunting, and teachers and other adults who have a concealed carry permit for self-defense. Such a policy also assumes that criminals will violate any law that we pass, so the law should target only criminal behavior, and not criminalize good behavior.) A proper understanding of the Commerce Clause indicates that the most the federal government can do in the firearms area is to keep one state from using taxation to adversely treat firearms which are made in another state and are for sale in the first state. As Justice Thomas put it in his opinion concurring with the majority in the Lopez case, the central issue of the wrong turn by the Court over the last 50 years was not being addressed head-on in Lopez, but it needs to be soon. If the Court were to be consistently constitutional, all federal gun control legislation, starting with Roosevelt's 1934 National Firearms Act, would be thrown out. This could actually happen in view of the five federal courts which have now held another federal gun control law to be unconstitutional on similar grounds to that of Lopez. Five sheriffs have sued successfully under the Tenth Amendment holding that Washington had no authority to force them to carry out a background check under the Brady Law. This argument points right back to Article I Section 8 where we have already found that there is no authority given to the federal government for gun control legislation. If the United States is to return to a lawful, constitutional national government, one of the sure signs of that return will be the removal of the decades-long imposition of federal gun laws. **************************************************************** Chris W. Stark Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative e-mail: gunowner@onramp.net Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner **************************************************************** "But 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." John Hancock, Author - The Declaration of Independence, January 18, 1777 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: RE: Waco Update August 5, 1997 (fwd) Date: 06 Aug 1997 07:10:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- WACO UPDATE AUGUST 5, 1997 by Carol Moore Member, the Committee for Waco Justice Author, The Davidian Massacre DAVIDIAN RE-SENTENCING DATE SET Judge Walter J. Smith will re-sentence Branch Davidians Brad Branch, Kevin Whitecliff, Jaime Castillo, Renos Avraam, and Graeme Craddock on Thursday, September 4th in Waco. The Davidian prisoners are expected to be present. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Smith could not sentence four Davidians to 30 years and one to ten years for carrying an illegal weapon during a crime (that of conspiracy of murder, of which all were acquitted) unless he provided sufficient evidence from the record that each Davidian actually carried such a weapon. Otherwise he could sentence them to only five years. Other District Courts have ruled that only a jury can decide if an individual carried an illegal weapon, making it likely that if Smith gives them sentences longer than five years, the Supreme Court will take the case. There is evidence that only two Davidians carried such weapons: Craddock's confession he was told he was given an illegal grenade; and a jail house snitch's allegation Avraam boasted that he had shot one on February 28, 1993. The only other evidence is the allegations of some ATF agents they heard automatic gun fire on February 28 (ATF agents themselves carried defacto automatics) and the FBI's claim it found 47 burned up illegal weapons after the fire. (They also found one pristine automatic in the back of a van on the property--a van which was open for 51 days and was towed away from the premises under lax security before the gun was found.) It might help if many of you wrote *polite* letters to Judge Smith asking him to have mercy on the Davidians and sentence them to time served on these weapons charges. Or just remind him of the legal facts and how embarrassing it will be if he is reversed by the Supreme Court! (Even if he does not impose more than five years, four Davidians can still appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds they deserve a new trial because Smith never told the jury they could find Davidians innocent of aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter in the case of self-defense and because the judge should have thrown out the gun convictions since they were supposed to be tied only to the murder sentences.) Write to: Judge Walter Smith, Jr. , Courtroom 301, U.S. Courthouse, 800 Franklin Avenue, Waco, Texas. Mention U.S. vs. Brad Branch, et al or Case W-93-CR-046. "A government that is evil has no room for good people except in its prisons." M.K. Gandhi UPDATED PRISONER ADDRESSES Three Davidian prisoners--Brad Branch, Jaime Castillo and Kevin Whitecliff--have been moved to the "higher security" new facility at Beaumont, Texas. They are able to visit with one and other there. Paul Fatta has been moved to a prison in Arizona. Since they are now in newer, air conditioned facilities, and closer to their families, they are not unhappy with the move. If you would like to write any of the eight prisoners, e-mail me for the updated address list. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATING KORESH'S GUN DEALER'S CHARGES AGAINST ATF AGENTS After ATF's brutal February 28, 1993 attack on the Davidians, Henry McMahon, David Koresh's gun dealer, would have happily told the FBI and the press that the Davidians' large purchases were for legitimate business purposes and not part of some nefarious cultist gun plot. That is why on March 1, 1993 ATF agents spirited him and his girlfriend Karen Kilpatrick away from their new home in Florida, claiming Davidians were coming to kill them. Once ATF got them to McMahon's father's in Oregon, ATF agents threatened to destroy McMahon's gun business if he spoke out. McMahon recorded the calls. ATF brought them back to Texas a few weeks later and ATF agents Davy Aguilera and Dale Littleton threatened to have them prosecuted for conspiracy if they did not waive their rights and speak to agents. Littleton pushed Kilpatrick up against a wall. This is certainly worse than what the FBI did to Richard Jewell! McMahon and Kilpatrick originally spoke with the NRA, which later lost interest in their case, and they could not raise enough money to file a civil suit against ATF and its agents within the statute of limitations. They contacted Senator Spector who was going to call them for hearings last fall against ATF. He then canceled the hearings because ATF was doing such a "good job" investigating church burnings. However, Spector did support McMahon and Kilpatrick when they filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (through their local prosecutors) against the ATF agents. They recently were interviewed by the FBI and have been told by Justice Department attorneys they have a very prosecutable case against the ATF agents. In fact, the case may go before a grand jury. Unfortunately, the Washington and major press have not yet picked up on this story, something sure to make the always-reluctant Justice Department find some excuse for not bring this abuse of citizens' rights to a grand jury. So feel free to get this story out to whatever press you know. Have them contact me for the McMahon's phone number. They are happy to tell their story. (Note: McMahon and Kirkpatrick have a web page (http://www.dmi.net/waco/) but no e-mail address. Also note: McMahon likes to correct the oft-made assertion he was a Class III gun dealer in the state of Texas, which he was not. He was previously a Class Dealer in another state.) BUILDING A NEW MOUNT CARMEL Several Davidian followers of David Koresh from around the country who met for the April 19 memorial were quite upset that the ex-wife and several friends of George Roden (the former Davidian leader who is incarcerated indefinitely for murder in a mental institution) have been trying to keep them off the 77 acre Mount Carmel property. The squatters even brandished weapons at them and one will soon go on trial. As the Waco Tribune-Herald reported in June, Davidian survivors have decided to press ahead with legal efforts to have these squatters permanently evicted. In fact, fire survivor Clive Doyle, his mother and several other elderly Davidian women have decided to pool their resources and set up trailers and live at Mount Carmel once again. This is very brave, considering that vandals have started several fires out there and recently burned down three shacks built by the squatters. The Davidians had been paying the taxes on the property through their lawyers. Unfortunately, the lawyers fell behind a few months and Roden's friends--who threw Amo Roden herself off the property for a while--paid several thousand dollars worth of taxes. A hearing is scheduled for September 29th in Waco's 19th State District Court over the ownership Mount Carmel. Davidian survivors are assured the Roden faction's squatting and tax payments will not affect their legal rights and are optimistic they will be able to legally retake Mount Carmel in the fall. If you would like to write them for their price list of books, videos and audio tapes and otherwise support their efforts write: Mount Carmel Survivors Memorial Fund, Inc., Box 120, Axtell, TX. If you want to order the most popular items right away, send $20 each (including postage) for the videos "Inside Mount Carmel" (Davidians speak out during the siege) or "Day 51" (an overview of government crimes vs. the Davidians). Send $2.00 each for assorted David Koresh sermons on audio tape and ask for the price list of the many sermons available. CAUSE FOUNDATION SPEAKS OUT ON STRASSMEIR CONNECTION Kirk Lyon's Cause Foundation has been working for justice for the Davidians from just after the siege began in 1993. They are now working with a large Houston law firm on the Davidian civil suits. Cause Foundation has been questioned and criticized because of its association and representation of Andy Strassmeir who lived at Elohim City for a couple of years. Some link him to the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy. The Cause Foundation finally has spoken out on their relation to Strassmeir on their web page http://207.15.176.3/cause. Cause's Spring 1997 newsletter also describes their complaint against the FBI with the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. They complained because for the Oklahoma City bombing investigation the FBI subpoenaed the phone records of the Cause Foundation. (It did discover that Timothy McVeigh called the office the day before the bombing. Staffers there remember someone calling telling them their efforts to get justice for the Davidians could not succeed.) However, because the Cause Foundation is a law office involved in the largest lawsuit ever filed against the FBI and the federal government, Cause considers this to be "an outrageous abuse of the police-state powers that this government has arrogated to itself." Cause wonders if the FBI also was tapping its lines during their investigation. It will be interesting to see if the Justice Department takes this complaint at all seriously. 40% BELIEVE FBI STARTED FIRE AT MOUNT CARMEL A recent Scripps Howard News Service and Scripps School of Journalism poll of "conspiracy fears" among the American public revealed that 40% of Americans believe that it is very or somewhat likely that "The FBI deliberately set the fires that destroyed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas, in 1993." (An obviously confused Washington Post columnists reported several weeks later that it was a Washington Post poll.) What was not clear was whether those voting yes included those who believe that FBI tanks merely smashed away at the building til it inevitably caught fire, as opposed to directly lighting it through some flame mechanism. Asked that way, the answer probably would have been closer to 70% of the American people Other responses included: 51% believe it is very or somewhat likely federal officials were responsible for the Kennedy assassination; 52% believe it is very or somewhat likely CIA pushes drugs in the inner- cities; 39% believe it is very or somewhat likely the U.S. Navy accidently or purposely shot down TWA Flight 800 in 1996; 80% believe the military is withholding evidence of Iraqi use of nerve gas or germ warfare during the Gulf War. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE ADVANCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT In late June President Clinton signed the emergency appropriations bill providing relief to flood-stricken states. The bill also provides funding for the National Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement--more than a year after the group was authorized to study federal law enforcement. The NRA, ACLU and other groups were responsible for this coup. Despite the Commission's pro-law enforcement sounding title, many of us hoped the Commission would look into some of the issues of federal law enforcement abuses that Congressional Weaver, Waco and other hearings have not brought to light. However, some doubt it can do so since the law did not give the Commission subpoena power. Moreover, its members, appointed by Congress, are largely establishment types who doubtless support the proposition "it's more important to protect federal law enforcement than to protect the people from federal law enforcement." It's chair is former CIA Director William Webster, who at least has expressed some criticism of the FBI. Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department Attorney specializing in terrorism, and a frequent pro-law enforcement television commentator, has had nothing nice to say about the Branch Davidians in interviews. Donald Dahlin is a Professor of Political Science at the University of South Dakota. Robert Stewart is Chief of the North Carolina state law division. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt appointed the Fraternal Order of Police President Gil Gallegos to the Commission "to protect the rights and reputations of federal officers." In a later press release, the Fraternal Order labeled the ACLU, NRA and other groups that promoted the Commission an "Extremist Coalition." In a press release the FOP "opposed this legislation very strongly, based on our belief that this "Commission" would be nothing more than a civilian review board for federal officers," and argued that the executive and congressional branches had "exhaustively" reviewed past incidents and the Commission's investigations might put law enforcement at risk. So I am afraid we can expect a good deal of sabotage but very little light or action on either past or future abuses of power by federal agents--or prosecutors. An interesting WWW site maintained at Syracuse University follows the regulatory and enforcement activities of the FBI, IRS, BATF, and DEA. Called Transaction Records Access Clearinghouse, it contains some surprising facts and figures. See: http://trac.syr.edu . FBI AGENTS "TWISTING IN THE WIND" In late July Senator Arlen Specter, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, complained that U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles' investigation of the death of Vicki Weaver, shot by FBI agents in 1992, was not yet completed and therefore was effectively leaving the accused agents "twisting in the wind." Of course, the investigation is not so much into the fact that she was killed, but into the fact that agents and official refuse to admit personal responsibility for giving the "shoot on sight" order that probably led to her death. Some also may have illegally destroyed evidence of who gave the order. Since FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi was acting on illegal orders, the Justice Department is absolving him of all personal responsibility for the murder if Vicki Weaver. MERLETTI NEW HEAD OF SECRET SERVICE In early June Lewis C. Merletti, who led the Treasury Department's investigation of the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidians, was sworn in as the 19th director of the Secret Service. The Treasury Report, while allowing some criticism of the planning and execution of the raid, promoted the government lies that the Davidians shot first, ambushing federal agents. It also totally failed to address serious allegations that agents shot from helicopters, killing four Davidians. Nor did it admit that BATF agents actually lied to the army about Davidian's involvement in drugs in order to receive free aid and special forces training that would not have been permitted without the drug connection. With someone who misses that much evidence of crimes in charge of the Secret Service, one must wonder about the safety of the president and of the currency system. Assassins and counterfeiter must feel safe with Merletti in charge! COMMENTS ON FILM "WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" I saw the 2 hour 15 minute version playing in Washington, DC in mid-June. (More editing is promised and inevitable before it is finally released on video at some time in the future.) The film attempts to prove that federal agents are guilty of murdering the Davidians and does a good job of it. (Unlike Fox's July 30th "Prophecies of the Millennium" which repeated every government-media lie about crazed suicidal cults.) Besides much footage we've all seen, it shows new material that just reinforces what we all know: ATF initiated a vicious raid and killed Davidians and their FBI buddies were *not* interested in allowing Davidians who defended themselves to survive the siege and April 19th gas and tank attack. Particularly startling new material included: the audio tape of ATF agent Jim Cavanaugh, who at the House hearings claimed bullet holes in the Davidians' highest roof came from ATF agents shooting *up* into it--he admits to David Koresh that agents were armed, and perhaps shooting from helicopters; what does seem to be actual footage of a helicopter approaching the water tower and shooting Davidian Peter Gent who was on it; Davidian Steve Schneider complains ATF can "erase all evidence to cover your butts if you want."; Koresh's grandmother's attorney relates how when he and the grandmother got to check point, Brannon heard an agent say, "I hope she told him goodbye."; excellent computer animation of the spread of the fire from one point of origin; Tarrant County Medical Examiner Peerwani complains the FBI confiscated the County's videos of the bodies in the rubble and then claimed to have lost them. I myself remain un-convinced by the proffered FLIR evidence that FBI agents shot guns at the Davidians during the fire. While I certainly think that is possible this happened, the light streaks pointed out in the film either seemed more likely to be from the shooting off of ferret rounds or from some other heat sources. I also doubted light streaks indicated agents shot very close to the building at about the same time a Davidian exited that area and escaped unharmed. The final proof, of course, would lie in confessions by FBI agents who witnessed or did the shooting. And we're not likely to get that unless we get a government willing to prosecute culpable agents. Unfortunately, some publications, like the Washington Post, have tried to make or break the film--and the whole "Waco story"--on the strength of these gunfire assertions. However, overall the film still overwhelms one with the great injustice done. The film could have been better organized to make and emphasize its points. Also, the minimal narration which allowed events and individuals to speak for themselves sometimes left even Waco buffs confused. And there were a few factual errors, such as the assertion Michael Schroeder was killed outside Mount Carmel on April 19th, when it was February 28th. Nevertheless, it is the most hardhitting and commercial film produced so far and evidence that even mainstream news people are still open to investigating the crimes against the Branch Davidians. NEW BOOK: NO MORE WACOS David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman, two well known Second Amendment writers and activists, have released their 524 page hardback "No More Wacos: What's Wrong With Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It." It is published by Prometheus Books and is in most major bookstore. The book is chock full of facts, and critical of federal government actions. I found its greatest failing to be factual errors and dubious interpretations based upon the authors' failure to interview Davidian survivors and attorneys. At a recent talk the authors said they did not believe there was a conspiracy against the Davidians, even as they had to admit the book exposed exhaustive efforts by federal agents and officials to coverup what really happened. Despite their attempts to be "even handed" toward federal law enforcement, I'm sure most readers will come away quite disgusted with the feds, so the book is a definite plus on those grounds! LOUIS FREEH REJECTS THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE, PART TWO In our first installment of the story, I had received a letter from the Inspector in Charge of the FBI Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, attached to my returned book and written materials, saying: "regulations applicable to Department of Justice employees preclude Director Freeh from accepting items such as this." I finally got a chance to talk to an agent in Public Affairs who told me that Department of Justice employees are prohibited from receiving gifts. I then asked if Janet Reno was out of compliance, since she hadn't returned hers. Annoyed, he told me I'd have to talk to her people about that. I then pointed out that this wasn't a gift, just me as a citizen providing the FBI Director with a book I'd written and other materials hoping this would open his eyes to crimes by his underlings. He told me that the FBI will take complaints based on cold hard facts-- he got angrier and more revved up as he repeated several times over--but it doesn't want *hearsay*, *opinions*, or *conclusions* based on newspaper articles or government reports or whatever. "We want facts!" he almost shouted. I said, "Oh, you mean like an audio tape of an FBI confessing to killing all those Davidians?" He didn't like that question. Then I asked if the Davidian survivors could file complaints about FBI agents' behavior during the siege or on April 19th. He grudgingly snapped back, "Yes." "That's fantastic," I said, and profusely thanked him for his help. I contacted one of the Davidian civil suit attorneys who said that while such an administrative complaint was an option for the Davidians, it was a waste of limited energy and money, especially since the civil suits covered the same ground. Of course, if Judge Smith throws out the civil suits, filing these complaints remains an option for Davidian survivors. For information about ordering my book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE, including steep discounts for a box of books, contact me. Carol Moore cmoore@capaccess.org 202/635-3739. Personal Editorial: Remember August 6, 1945. No more Hiroshimas! No more Wacos! No more nation states. No more wars. Love, peace and freedom forever! :-) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: White House Dazzles Womens Magazine editors Date: 06 Aug 1997 08:00:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Online Update August 5 - 11, 1997 Fools for Fashion by Byron York In late May, the media mavens at the Clinton White House held an all-day briefing for editors and top executives of several national women's magazines. Such affairs -- in which administration officials lavish out-of-town journalists with precious face-time and inside scoops -- are fairly common events in government. But under Bill Clinton, they have become uncommonly successful; in this area, as in so many others (obstruction of justice comes to mind), the Clinton White House has clearly out-performed its predecessors. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and Second Lady Tipper Gore - -- not to mention Madeleine Albright, Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, and Alexis Herman -- all turned on the charm for the visiting writers. They briefed on crime. They briefed on the environment. They briefed on welfare. They briefed on every "women's issue" imaginable. To say they had a friendly audience is a vast understatement. Just look at the recollections of two participants, Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue, the venerable glossy fashion mag, and Elaina Richardson, editor of Elle, its relatively upstart, even glossier competition. In their new issues, Wintour and Richardson each devote a column to the day of briefings -- and their words give us a delightful peek at the coddling, fawning and glad-handing that make up the Clintons' courtship of friendly journalists. "The atmosphere was vaguely reminiscent of a girls' school," Richardson wrote, "with the brilliant valedictorians of years past coming to update us on the political agenda; there was so much vigor, so much collegial goodwill, so much certainty that progress was being made. And these women were phenomenally together, too: well-manicured, smartly dressed. Downtime, apparently, wasn't high on their agenda." But the dazzling scene soon set Richardson to pondering more serious topics. What will it take, she wondered, for these women to solve the problems that face America? What will it take for them to bring people together? And "what does it take for these women to get through the whirlwind that is their day?" According to the editor of Elle, it will take lots of sensitivity -- and sisterhood: "An ebullient Madeleine Albright told a wonderful anecdote that provided a little insight: Finland is one of the very few other countries that has a female foreign secretary (Tarja Halonen). When they met for their first high-level discussion, Albright revealed, they threw some of their stodgier male colleagues into a tizzy by getting into their 'feelings' about various issues. Later, as they sat down for a formal meal, Albright noticed some black smudges on her fingers. 'Has my mascara run all over my face?' she asked Halonen. 'No,' Halonen replied. 'And if it had, I would have told you. We women need to stick together.' Then -- presumably -- they got back to business." Next to Richardson, Anna Wintour seemed almost dour. She found it ironic to learn that while she and her fellow editors were discussing all sorts of weighty issues, the president himself was next door, denouncing the fashion industry for glamorizing so-called "heroin chic." "It's a shame he didn't drop in on us editors," Wintour wrote. "Because if he had, we would have told him that 'heroin chic' hasn't been chic for some time." How could the White House be so out of it? And magazines like Vogue, Wintour continued, never went in for heroin chic in the first place; it was only a few cutting-edge, small-circulation British publications that loved those emaciated, hollow-eyed models staring blankly into the camera. The same for the fashion industry as a whole; heroin chic, Wintour concluded, never was much to worry about. Given that, did Wintour conclude that Clinton's speech might be the result of some cynical political calculation? That it might in fact be just another poll-driven, empty mini-initiative? Nah. "It's hard to fault the president," Wintour wrote. After all, his words actually did some good. "The leading modeling agencies recently came together," Wintour informed her readers, "to make plans to help any models on drugs..." In the broad world of media bias, one might be tempted to dismiss the fashion magazines as a trivial sideshow. After all, this is not the New York Times we're talking about. But these publications have large audiences: Vogue, with a circulation of 1,190,000, and Elle, with 924,000, each have more buyers than The American Spectator, National Review, the Nation, the Weekly Standard, the New Republic, and Harper's combined. So media watchdogs everywhere, take note. Every now and then, take a break from the Times, the Post, and the networks. Take a look at Vogue and all its counterparts. The Clintons certainly do. Byron York is an investigative writer with TAS. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: MUST READ: Clintons Juggernaut Date: 06 Aug 1997 08:07:01 -0500 (CDT) A long piece sent to me by a friend of CAS, an 'evil Republican investment banker' as Mario Cuomo would say. (Actually he's more like a Libertarian) Probably the best analysis I have seen as to why Clinton gets away with what he does politically. Regards, John - ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Reply-to: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Organization: dis Hate to spoil your day, but this piece by Mark Melcher of Prudential's Washington research office really distills the reality of the stranglehold BillyBoy has on the country's neck. Feel free to repost this to CAS if you want - it's a great piece. July 30, 1997 Three Cheers for Bill - Mark L. Melcher Without question, this has been a very good summer for political junkies like me. We have witnessed an intense class-warfare battle waged by Democrats over the pending tax cuts and Medicare changes, a treacherous coup attempt against Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich by his fellow Republicans, and a bruising opening round in what promises to be a protracted political war over campaign financing abuses. The Summer's political entertainments are just sideshows. I have, of course, enjoyed every minute of it. Watching these guys go toe-to-toe over social, political and economic issues is my idea of a great time. So I am not complaining. But I must say that some of the pleasure I would normally have gained from watching these exhibitions has been mitigated by a constant awareness that none of it matters much to the long term political fortunes of the two parties, because these fortunes will, in the final analysis, be decided by one man and one man alone, and that man is Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Whitewater is still the main event. If Starr brings credible indictments against First Lady Hillary Rodham CLinton and a handful of other present and former big-shot CLinton associates, such as close presidential advisor Bruce Lindsey, former White House political operative Harold Ickes, or former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, then everything else political that is happening in Washington will suddenly become small potatoes. It could mean big trouble for Bill . . . If he offers credible proof to House Judiciary Committe Chairman Hyde that Bill himself has violated criminal statutes then Washington would be turned upside down. If, on the other hand, Starr indicts a few minor players, and closes up shop, I think Clinton will eat the Republicans for lunch throughout the remainder of his term, possibly even winning back control of the House for his party in the 1998 congressional elections. As ever, we underestimate Clinton. I have spent a great deal of time lately listening to and reading what the nation's leading political pundits think is the reason that the GOP is constantly being beaten in its political and public relations battles with the White House. My reluctant conclusion from this effort is that it all comes down to the fact that Bill Clinton and his entourage are the best political operatives this town has seen since the days of Lyndon Johnson. Newt isn't in his league. Newt Gingrich is, unquestionably, a great politician. He wouldn't be where he is if he weren't. But when it comes to taking on Bill Clinton, he is like a great college basketball star playing one on one with Michael Jordan. He doesn't have a chance. And Gingrich is the best the Republicans have. The other guys couldn't even suit up against Clinton. With enormous quantities of confidence, chutzpah, energy and tactical skill, Bill has shown time and again that he can play the American public, the mainstream American media and the Republican Congress like a fine violin. Sometimes the piece he chooses is so challenging that I think he surely won't get away with it. The strings on the old Stradivarius are going to pop this time, I think. And then he turns in a flawless performance. When he's doing one of these numbers, I am reminded of what Beethoven is supposed to have said when a musician complained about how hard it was on his instrument to play his Opus 132, the A-minor String Quartet: "What do I care about your damn fiddle." This White House can perform tricks that would make Richard Nixon blush. What other politician, I ask, would have had the chutzpah to not just have his justice Department drop pending plans to indict the top members of a corrupt union, but order instead that the head of that union, a friend and big contributor, be put in charge of an in-house clean-up effort? Who but Bill could have gotten away with such a thing without even a whimper from the press or from any prominent Republican? Who but Bill could remain virtually unscathed politically from a period in which both of his former business partners are convicted of felonies; as well as his former friend and Lieutenant Governor; one of his closest personal friends and number-three man at the Justice Department; and a host of other friends and former business associates? Who but Bill's wife could turn $1,000 into $100,000 in the commodities market in a six month period and not have a single eye-brow raised in any law enforcement agency? He knows where the weak points are. Bill Clinton doesn't just suspect that the liberal press in America has no shame, that the public is too ignorant to care, and that the Republicans are political cowards, and stupid as well, he is willing to gamble big stakes, time and again, that this is true. This gives him a formidable edge over every other politician in Washington today, and places him, in my opinion, in the big leagues of American History's sharpies. This White House lets no political attack go unanswered. Every major political enemy is scouted for weaknesses and when these are found they are ruthlessly exploited by one or more of a large corps of 'prominent political observers' who are 'made available' to the press. Sometimes White House enemies develop problems almost out of nowhere. The IRS has appeared at the door of a surprising number of conservative think tanks over the past few years. And an allegation of wrongdoing was directed at Representative Dan Burton by a Democratic political party operative within a few weeks of an announcement by Burton that he planned to hold hearings on White House fund-raising practices. The Justice Department launched a formal grand jury investigation of these charges almost before the ink was dry on the press accounts on Burton's 'own alleged violations of campaign financing laws.' This is a White House that wastes virtually no money on policy advisors. There are no foreign or domestic policy gurus of any note, or any serious economists, in any of the higher slots. Virtually everyone who is anyone is assigned to political spin control and quick-response attack teams. And these latter characters are very good at what they do. Indeed, this is a White House that once cooly collected over 900 FBI files on former White House officials. This is a White House that has assiduously developed friends in high places in the major media markets. AMong those who have spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom were CNN founder and Time-Warner Vice Chair Ted Turner and his lovely wife Jane; Richard Kaplan, executive producer for special projects at ABC and former executive producer of World News Tonight; Leslie Moonves, president of CBS Entertainment; and Doris Kearns Goodwin, a regular on PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. There's no political feat he won't try. Many times in the past four-and-a-half years, if I'd been an advisor to Bill, I surely would have said, "You'll never get away with that." And he would have said, "Watch me." And the next week, I would have said, "You sure called that one right." If Bill CLinton were a member of the Flying Wallendas he could, I believe, not only walk across Niagara Falls on a tightrop, without a balancing rod, blindfolded in a snowstorm, but he could do it with a gerbil in his pocket. Bill is, in my opinion, as perfectly suited to his age and time as any president the nation has ever had. He has broken the code for presiding over his baby-boomer generation. Instinctively, he knows that entertainment is what they seek, and he and his followers are endlessly entertaining. And they are entertaining not in the staid old 1950's Leave it to Beaver and I Love Lucy manner. They are entertaining by 1990's standards. THey are ribald, irreverent, raucous and illicit. They populate their show with oddballs, eccentrics, sexual tension, and a sprinkling of banal 'New Age' philosophy and personal actions that make everyone feel good about their own moral and ethical shortcomings. They are the political equivalent of the highly popular afternoon talk shows, like Sally Jesse Raphael, Jenny Jones and Ricki Lake with their daily parade of sexual weirdos and social wackos. Who can forget the astonishing array of Arkansas crooks, con men, shysters and sharpsters who bob in and out of the Clinton presidency with the law in close pursuit, like something out of an old Keystone Kops movie. And now appears an amazing new crowd of international crooks and schemers, flibbertigibbets and fly-by-nighters to keep American entertained. We are presented with impoverished nuns who donate generous amounts to Bill's cause, whatever that is; and Russian and Chinese arms dealers and international dope peddlers, who, we are told, are such political ingenues that they would pay tens of thousands of dollars for nothing more that the opportunity to have coffee and get their picture taken with the President of the United States. No screen writer, no matter how imaginative, could have done a better job than Bill Clinton of inventing a presidency for the 1990s, when the baby boomers came of political age. (END PART I) ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas Part two of Bill's Juggernaut. Regards, John - ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Reply-to: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Organization: dis (Melcher's piece CONTINUED) No one goes broke underestimating the U.S. populace. Newt Gingrich tries to be popular by waxing intellectual to an audience that is so ignorant - as a result of almost three decades of decay in the American educational system, that 25% of them, according to a recent poll, believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Bill tells this crowd what kind of underwear he wears. Now who, I ask, is going to win that battle? A sadder but wiser Mark Melcher no longer has any doubt about it. So the only thing that can trip up Bill is an indictment. It seems to me that there is little doubt that Starr has enough evidence to bring credible action against a variety of individuals close to the Clintons, as well as against Hillary Rodham CLinton herself. Space doesn't permit a run down of this evidence, but my colleague Steve Soukup and I will present a Potomac Perspective article in the near future on the subject. But with all due respect to Mr. Starr, his public actions so far lend credence to the belief that he is a very weak-kneed character, with poor prosecutorial skills and little enthusiasm for the job. Among other things, his plea bargaining with Webster Hubbell was widely believed by virtually everyone familiar with his efforts to have been a joke. He was far from aggressive in his post-trial, pre-sentencing negotiations with former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker. And his dealings with former CLinton Whitewater partner Susan McDougal have been bungled at best. Besides all this, his recent decision, later rescinded, to quit the job entirely, to go teach at Pepperdine University, indicated a lack of commitment and enthusiasm that was astounding. Right smack in the middle of heading up an investigation that could change the course of American history, this guy wants to walk off the job. Hello? Time will tell, of course, whether Ken Starr has any grit. One thing is clear though. Should Starr decided to take a powder, the Clinton White House will be off the hook completely, for there isn't a single Republican who would have the nerve to take up the cudgel via the public-hearings route. White House spin-control and quick-reaction teams are simply too good for these guys and they know it. The result is, as I said earlier, that if Clinton gets by Starr, he is not only home free, he will be in the political driver's seat for the rest of his term. Even as regards the campaign financing questions that are currently being examined in the Sente hearings, I believe the Democrats will skate free, as long as the White House can keep the investigation in Attorney General Janet Reno's hands and not in those of an independent prosecutor. After all, he's washed his hands of all Vince Foster questions. If all of this sounds somewhat cynical, let's close with a brief look at the events surrounding the recent announcement by Ken Starr that he and his staff have determined, with no reservations, that Foster killed himself in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. For starters, one would think that, given the importance of the issue, someone, somewhere, would be interested in how Starr came to this conclusion; how he resolved the many oddities in the official version of what happened that day. After all, he spent three years, and untold amounts of money, looking into this area, so presumably it couldn't have been all that cut and dried. But one would be wrong. In fact, even though Starr did not release any of the details of his investigation, or answer any questions about it, the major mainstream media accepted his terse announcement without reservation. Personally, I would like to see how Starr explained some of the questions raised by the so-called 'conspiracy theorists.' And I am surprised that Dan and Peter wouldn't also like to do so, given the sport that they could have at the expense of the 'enemies of the president.' But then, who am I? If I were Newt, however, or someone else in power in the Republican establishment, I would be a little suspicious of the quality of Ken's work on this subject, given that he doesn't want anyone to examine it. I would raise my hand and say, "Hey Ken, baby. Humor me a little. Tell me how Vince's glasses ended up where they did?" But it won't happen. (END OF PIECE) JNM:> Sorry to send such a long piece but I really thought it was well written. JNM ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Texas wins battle over motor voter registration (fwd) Date: 06 Aug 1997 16:10:11 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- U.S. challenge to Texas law dropped Motor-voter clarification allowed 08/06/97 By David LaGesse / The Dallas Morning News WASHINGTON - Texas can now begin to use a 2-year-old law that makes clear that noncitizens aren't eligible for motor-voter registration services. Officials said Tuesday that the Justice Department had dropped its challenge to the law, which had delayed it from taking effect. State officials recently threatened to sue the federal government over the issue, and Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said he might block Justice Department appointments. "I think it was a combination of bureaucratic bungling and micromanagement by the federal government," Texas Secretary of State Tony Garza said Tuesday. "I think they were also embarrassed about this when the FBI began investigating noncitizen voting in Dallas County." He was referring to a preliminary inquiry by the U.S. attorney in Dallas into allegations of voting by noncitizens. It is one of several investigations nationwide. Federal officials say they didn't mean for the state to encourage noncitizens to vote. Justice Department lawyers say they wanted only to make sure that the state didn't also deny citizens an opportunity to register. The dispute stemmed from the state's interpretation of the 1993 motor-voter law, passed by Congress to encourage voter registration. The federal law requires state agencies to offer voter registration cards to anyone who applies for state services, most notably driver's licenses. But applicants for some state services, particularly welfare, must say whether they are citizens because they qualify for more benefits than noncitizens. So Texas legislators in 1995 tried to stop state agencies from presenting registration forms to applicants who identify themselves as noncitizens. That drew the objection from the Justice Department, which must review all changes to Texas voting laws. Texas is one of nine states that must clear voting law changes with the federal government under the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Federal officials feared that some Texas agencies might not keep updated records on citizenship status, said Paul Hancock, acting deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights. Clients for state services might become citizens and still not be offered a chance to register, he said. "We never had a dispute with the state about wanting to keep noncitizens from voting," he said. The state wrote a revised rule earlier this year that resolved the federal concerns. It said that only state agencies that regularly update citizenship information would use it to limit voter registration. Because of that, the Justice Department lifted its objection in a letter to Mr. Garza dated Monday. Texas officials threatened to sue when Justice Department delayed a final review for several months. "I think we helped to finally get their attention," said Larry Neal, a spokesman for Mr. Gramm. [IMAGE] © 1997 The Dallas Morning News About us ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: L&J: [Fwd: Robert K. Dornan] (fwd) Date: 06 Aug 1997 12:50:56 -0700 Paul, [...] FEAR NOT, BOB IS BACK!!!! [...] Here's hoping! ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: New Hunting Forum on AOL! Date: 06 Aug 1997 21:55:34 -0700 (PDT) My hats off to AOL for allowing for the creation of a new, first-class forum on hunting. This is the kind of PRESENCE we need on the world's largest commercial network service. Keyword, HBN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: is this a anti-gun & anti-people convention? (fwd) Date: 07 Aug 1997 08:21:12 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Is this a nefarious convention that we pro-second amendment folks should be aware of and pay attention to before it is too late? Well, whats a little chicannery among gun-grabbers? Found this on a anti-gun web-site. This according to the web-site is their intention for their meeting as you see it here. =========================================================== =========================================================== 4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence September 12, 13, 1997 Washington, DC Convened by The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence The Episcopal Diocese of Washington The Violence Policy Center Americans are uniting to reduce gun violence. Across the country, there is a growing grassroots movement consisting of diverse groups of people working to reduce firearm death and injury. This conference is the only national meeting that has as its focus the needs of grassroots activists and provides an opportunity for concerned citizens to learn from one another about successful initiatives and programs that reduce gun violence. 1997 Objectives 1. Education Seminars are tailored to meet the needs of the most seasoned activists as well as those new to the movement. Seminar topics will include: basic statistics, important publications and resources that every advocate should have, the true meaning of the Second Amendment, the rudiments of firearm technology, and current federal and state legislation. Also, gun violence prevention activists will learn about pro-gun organizations and the links between the gun culture and the militia movement . 2. Organizing Techniques After becoming familiar with gun violence issues, activists need to organize. Seminars will instruct participants how to start an organization, the fundamentals of organizing, and fund- raising. 3. Successful Initiatives Once organized, activists can pursue successful initiatives. The conference will teach proven strategies which activists can replicate, such as anti-violence initiatives which involve young people, and efforts to hold the gun industry accountable through firearm litigation. Tentative Schedule Friday, September 12 8:00AM - 12:00PM Registration 9:00 - 10:00AM Keynote Address 10:30AM - 12:00PM Choice of Seminar 12:30 - 2:00PM Lunch 2:30 - 4:00PM Choice of Seminar 4:30 - 6:00PM Choice of Seminar 6:30- 8:00 Dinner - Keynote by Scott harshbarger, Attorney General of Masachusetts (invited) Saturday, September 13 8:00 - 11:30AM Registration 9:00 - 10:00AM Keynote by Ellen Miller of Public Campaign 10:15 - 11:45AM Networking and Exchange of Materials 12:00 - 1:30PM Lunch - Keynote on Firearms Litigation by A. Kennon Goff III, Esq., Chairman, Association of Trial Lawyers of America Defective Firearm and Ammunition Subgroup 2:00 - 3:30PM Choice of Seminar 3:45 - 5:15PM Choice of Seminar 5:30 - 6:30PM Closing Remarks Seminar Topics (Partial List) The Second Amendment Anti-Violence Programs for Young People Gun Shows: Tupperware Parties for Criminals Help For Survivors: The Role of Victims in Advocacy The Gun Lobby: Who, What, Where, and Why Federal and State Legislation Concealed-Carry Laws: So What Is the Evidence? Fund-raising Hands Without Guns, a Youth Anti-Violence Program How to Start Your Own Nonprofit Beginning Organizing Guns 101 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Firearm Statistics, Publications, and Resources, But Didn't Know Who to Ask Firearms Litigation Gun Culture and Its Links to the Militia Movement The Nexus Between the International Small Arms Trade and Gun Violence in the U.S. Featured Speakers Addison K. Goff, Goff & Goff A. Kennon Goff, Goff & Goff Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates Scott Carpenter, Peace Action of Washington Sue Glick, Violence Policy Center Natalie Goldring, British American Security Information Council Dennis Henigan, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Josh Horwitz, Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence John Johnson, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence JoAnn Karn, Hands Without Guns Robin Katcher, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Dan Kotowski, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University and Northwestern/University of Chicago Poverty Center Ellen Miller, Public Campaign Luis Montes, Teens on Target Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center Michael Robbins, Help for Survivors Andres Soto, Pacific Center for Violence Prevention Anja Speerforck, Social Action Leadership School Joe Sudbay, Handgun Control, Inc. Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center Tom Vanden Berk, Help For Survivors Garen Wintemute, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California at Davis Conference Registration Information Please Register before September 5, 1997. A registration form must be completed for each participant. If you have any questions about registration or would like more information about the conference, please call Desmond Riley at 202-530-5888 ext. 24. Fees The conference registration fee is $80.00 per person. The fee includes lunch of Friday and Saturday, dinner on Friday, and all conference materials. Please register before September 5, 1997. Please send your completed registration with a check or money order payable to: The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence 1000 16th St. NW Suite 603 Washington, DC 20036 Scholarships Requests for scholarship assistance to attend the conference will be considered if submitted in writing to the Educational Fund by August 15, 1997. For more information, please call Desmond Riley at 202-530-5888 ext. 24. If you are unable to attend, but wish to make a tax-deductible donation to the conference's scholarship fund, please make your check payable to the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence and send to the address listed above. Hotel Accommodations The 4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence will be held at the Holiday Inn on Capitol Hill, 415 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington DC 20001. Reservations must be made through the hotel. Please call (800)-638-1116 or (202)-638-1616 and mention you are attending the 4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >From Robert in Springfield-Missouri. [1]. "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ....Samuel Adams [2]. "No freeman shall ever be disbarred the use of arms." ....Thomas Jefferson [3]. "To disarm the people is the most effective way to enslave them . . . " ....George Mason [4]. "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth." ....George Washington [5]. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ....Goethe [6]. Tyranny's first step is changing a God-given right, to a government issued privilege. [7]. Freedom now days is a state of mind. [8]. Has anyone mentioned a soon-to-be maximum leader that will soon descend on us and will that be briefly announced in the A-section of some future Sunday morning paper? [9]. Just another day in paradise or is the "paradise" quickly disappearing or has disappeared and a many people haven't figured it out yet? [10]. Be watchful for the federal thought police and their evil associates--who may, someday, be coming soon your city, town, village or farm. [11]. "The law should surely be accesible at all times and to everyone" ....Franz Kafka [12]. "People have not yet discovered they have been disenfranchised. Even lawyers can't stand to admit it. In any nation in which people's rights have been subordinated to the rights of the few, in any totalitarian nation, the first institution to be dismantled is the jury. I was, I am, afraid." ....Gerry Spence Mail me with BCC: please, thank you. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: UNA - rpt on prepcom4 day 1 Date: 07 Aug 1997 12:39:40 -0400 This is an announcement from the International Criminal Court list. Note that Protugal wants the International Court to have primacy over national courts. >The following is a summary of the opening session of the Preparatory >Committee (PrepCom) to lay the groundwork for an international diplomatic >conference scheduled for June, 1998 in Italy to finalize and adopt the >statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC). > >A permanent Court would be established by a treaty open to the voluntary >participation of all interested states to investigate complaints and try >the individuals responsible for such offenses as genocide, war crimes, and >crimes against humanity when a national criminal justice system is >unavailable or ineffective. > >Two PrepComs were held in 1996 and one in February 1997 to draft the >Court's statute. The current session is scheduled for August 4-15 and >future sessions are scheduled for December 1997 and early 1998. > >--Jonathan > > >Opening Session: August 4, 1997 > > The August 4, 1997 United Nations working group meeting on the >International Criminal Court (ICC) was the first in a two week-long series >of meetings. Delegates from over eighty countries attended the session; >representatives from over 20 non-governmental organizations observed. > > The meeting began with a general statement by the Dutch chairman of the >committee, who stressed the need for an international tribunal that could >bring individuals responsible for crimes against humanity, such as >genocide, to justice. He cited examples of inadequate and inefficient >action in the cases of the ad hoc tribunals currently trying accused war >criminals from the former Yugoslavia and those charged with genocide in >Rwanda. > > The first substantive controversy addressed by delegates at the opening >session was the nature of the relationship between the proposed ICC and >national criminal courts. Delegates from fifteen states expressed concern >that an international criminal court should not supersede individual >states' justice systems in instances where national authorities are making >a legitimate effort to prosecute accused perpetrators domestically. In >particular, the delegates from Germany, France and the United Kingdom >expressed reservations about the ambiguity contained in the article that >defined the instances in which the ICC would have authority to act. >According to the working document, the ICC can intervene when there is a >lack of a "good faith effort" (Article 45) to hold a fair trial in the >domestic court. > > Several of the states that spoke supported maintaining the wording as >written, implicitly conferring a broader spectrum of powers to the ICC to >claim jurisdiction in its discretion. In particular, the representative of >Portugal supported including a provision stating that the "ICC has primacy >over national courts." > > The second major issue that surfaced was the need for defining the >role of >the ICC in cases where there is no domestic criminal justice system at all. > Currently, there are no guidelines that address this issue and the states >that spoke were in general agreement that such a provision is necessary. > > --Arvidas Remeza, Research >Assistant, UNA-USA > > >Jonathan Cohen >UNA-USA >801 Second Avenue >New York, NY 10017-4706 >(212) 907-1300, ext. 325 >(212) 682-9185 (Fax) >jcohen@unausa.org >www.unausa.org > ============================================================= = "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." = = -- Space mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu = ============================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Tigar defense of Nichols in Oklahoma Bombing Date: 07 Aug 1997 13:30:26 -0500 (CDT) Nichols' Lawyer Mulls Strategy Julie DelCour World Staff Writer 8/6/97 SAN FRANCISCO -- In preparing for its first space missions years ago, NASA spent $1 million to develop a ball-point pen to be used in zero-gravity situations. Confronted with the same problem, the Russians skipped high tech and got out the lead, equipping their cosmonauts with pencils.
When he gets ready to defend Oklahoma City bombing defendant Terry Nichols this fall, Texas attorney Michael Tigar says he will take his lead from the Russians and try his case more simply than did the defense team of Nichols' co-defendant Timothy McVeigh.
Tigar, a University of Texas College of Law professor, addressed the litigation section of the American Bar Association meeting here Tuesday.
For starters, Tigar said, he will keep a lower profile.
"The most dangerous place in America was between Stephen Jones and a television camera," he quipped, referring to McVeigh's lead counsel, who is attending the ABA convention.
Instead of hiring 20 lawyers at public expense, Tigar said Nichols' defense team will include only five attorneys.
"There are 28,000 FBI reports on CD-ROM, 10,000 pieces of physical evidence, 20 government experts," Tigar said. "But we're preparing the traditional way."
Tigar said Colorado U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch's decision to have McVeigh and Nichols tried separately allowed Nichols' team "to try this case the way we wanted to, to distance ourselves from McVeigh."
The principal difference between the two cases, Tigar said, is that McVeigh left a written and verbal trail outlining his intentions, writing to friends, for example, about his desire to "cut off federal agents' heads."
"There is not one word, line or syllable from my client of any desire to commit violence against anyone -- not a scrap."
Jury selection in the Nichols case begins Sept. 29 in Denver. Nichols faces the death penalty if convicted on 11 counts of conspiracy, murder and weapons- related charges.
In Denver on Wednesday, the Nichols defense team filed another challenge to the death penalty. Last year, Matsch ruled the statute constitutional.
McVeigh was convicted June 2 on 11 identical charges. On June 13, a jury condemned him to die. He has asked for a new trial. If that motion is overruled, McVeigh will be sentenced formally to the death penalty by Matsch.
In his motion, Tigar claims that the death-penalty law is unconstitutional when applied to a defendant, such as Nichols, who is charged "solely as an accomplice before the fact . . . and not as the principal who actually carried out the crime."
"The Eighth Amendment (prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment) forbids execution of an accomplice-defendant unless his culpability is shown to meet two minimum requirements: major participation in the felony committed and reckless indifference to human life," Tigar said.
Under the federal death penalty law, in which Nichols is charged, a jury could find that Nichols was a minor participant and still sentence him to death, Tigar argued.
Absence from the crime scene, Tigar argued, "is only one of a large number of undisputed facts that are totally inconsistent with the idea that Nichols was a major participant in McVeigh's scheme in the months leading up to the bombing."
"In short, the evidence at trial will demonstrate, as we have maintained from the outset of this case, that capital charges are totally unwarranted against Nichols," Tigar said.
He said he is seeking a ruling before trial in hopes of increasing Nichols' chances for bond and to avoid qualifying the jury to consider the death penalty.
Copyright 1996, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: SOBRAN: "Put your dreams away" (fwd) Date: 07 Aug 1997 16:27:17 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.uexpress.com/ups/opinion/column/js/archive/js970722.html PUT YOUR DREAMS AWAY WASHINGTON -- Only two years ago Bill Clinton appeared to be the most vulnerable president to seek re-election since Herbert Hoover. The Republicans, having captured Congress for the first time since the days of Harry Truman, spoke triumphantly of staging a "revolution." Now look. Mr. Clinton has been handily re-elected and enjoys high approval ratings. Meanwhile, the congressional Republicans, maddened by the president's ability to outmaneuver them, are imploding. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has just survived an attempted, or half-attempted, "coup." Having had the chance to become a ruling party, the Republicans can't even function as an effective opposition party -- with majorities in both houses of Congress! And they are achieving these wonders of ineptitude even without the leadership of George Bush, Bob Dole and Robert Michel. Apparently their talent pool is inexhaustible. The result of all this is that the country has resumed the drive toward increased centralization of government that was briefly stalled by Ronald Reagan. Any pretense of a Republican "revolution" is over. The era of big government is back. Actually, it never ended. The United States never abandoned or even cut the massive entitlement programs adopted in this century. The original constitutional system was never restored for a moment. Despite periodic alarms over a "new isolationism," U.S. foreign policy is as thoroughly interventionist as ever. After the recent and much-heralded budget deal, federal spending will actually increase. It would be nice to be able to make an optimistic prediction. But the situation is bound to get worse. The two-party duopoly prevents the real political competition that might produce timely reform. Long-term demographic trends favor the Democrats (Mr. Clinton recently rejoiced that whites will become a minority in this country early in the next century), which means that the Republicans will keep moving leftward too. Political centralization is not necessarily ruinous; sometimes it can liberalize large areas that were formerly crushed by local despotism. In some countries political centralization has actually fostered economic competition. But when it brings economic centralization, as it does in our system, it is stifling. We are getting rid of both political and economic competition at once. While much of the world is being Americanized, America is being Mexicanized. Mexico, having been reduced to shabby poverty by generations of leftist one-party rule, has seen millions of its desperate people flee to this country. But the Mexican immigrants aren't Mexicanizing this country; our own politicians are doing that by following the Mexican model which has driven the immigrants here. The conditions that are already obvious in our big cities, those laboratories of socialism, are bound to spread. The natural tendency of centralized government is to make the whole country uniform, indeed to insist on uniformity. There are few utopian socialists left, and centralization no longer makes sweeping promises of economic prosperity. The ruins of the communist world have tarnished the dream of the "planned economy." So today centralization is accomplished through taxation and piecemeal regulation, in the name of the environment, safety and civil rights, making all property owners directly answerable to the central government. Apart from questions of constitutional law and personal freedom (which few Republicans and no Democrats bother to raise), such total control raises the overhead of enterprise and clogs production. It's a ball and chain on the leg of America. July 22, 1997 **************************************************** "The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collec- tion of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising." -- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun of Japan, August 29, 1558 **************************************************** Harvey Wysong, Exec. Dir. JURI, Judicial Reform Institute P.O. Box 191552, Atlanta, GA 31119-1552 (404) 266-0930 harvey@juri.com http://www.juri.com **************************************************** =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: Subject: Bill Of Attainder Project (fwd) Date: 08 Aug 1997 14:34:41 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- mlindste@clandjop.com, jeffs@gr.cns.net, fktown@flash.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, Shiloh1@airmail.net, nox2128@montana.com *********************************** BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT *********************************** "We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln I got this quote from Cyndee Parker of the Georgia effort to repeal the fingerprint law. I have gotten a number of bits of information from them I have found very useful. Although this quote may have originally come from James Ruggles, Lincoln deserves the quote, and the credit for understanding what it means and where it came from. It was James Madison who is quoted: "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." Nothing in our society portrays this point better than the bill of attainder issue. The "bastardized form of illegitimate government" Lincoln and Madison were talking about exists today, now. This tyranny has made Americans "subjects" instead of "citizens" It is exactly the tyranny we the people must address to regain the power of the people our ancestors asked us to preserve. A people without the right to own private property over the right of the government to take it are not citizens. Americans do not understand this, most of them do not know they no longer have the right to their own property. It was Samuel Adams who said, "Now what liberty is this when property can be taken without permission." The government not only has over 300 laws which permit them to confiscate property, they are doing it with no regard for guaranteed Constitutional rights. America has legislatures who not only have no regard or knowledge of bills of attainder, they no longer make laws which respects their restriction on passing ex-post facto laws. Bills of attainder are more than one thing and harder to understand than ex-post facto laws. The fact that both states and the federal governments are passing these laws, and the courts are enforcing them, shows there is no regard in our government for the preservation of individual rights, or private property. The Bill Of Attainder Project is dedicated to having the phrase, "bill of attainder" defined in the law as: "A law or legal device which outlaws people, suspends their civil rights, confiscates their property, punishes or puts people to death without a trial." By establishing this definition in the law, the people are restored in their right to private property. The Congress, the government, and the people would restore the Constitution's purpose to preserve individual liberty. The Congress, the government, and the people, together would understand that the law is not to be used to plunder American life, liberty, and property. Most people would agree that the law should not be used to plunder life, liberty, and property. Most do not realize the 104th Congress seemed to be dedicated to using the law to plunder. Did they bastardize the Constitution? I started the Bill of Attainder Project after doing a study through the U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, (CC#93-1-1037), with cooperation from the Justice Department. My purpose was to see how, "bill of attainder" was defined in the law. Robert Sharpe, who headed the Asset Forfeiture program sent me the United States Code concerning bills of attainder. The law does not define the phrase bills of attainder. It has excerpts under the heading of definitions, but none of these defines the phrase. Congress cannot protect you from a "thing" it cannot define. Worse, these passages which are presented as definitions were placed into the information the Justice Department sent me, by publishers. Not the courts, judges or lawyers, or the Congress which should be responsible, it was publishers. There is no historical basis for any of these definitions that our entire legal system uses to define (describe), "bill of attainder." Americans have been cheated of their individual liberty, their right to private property, and their right to be protected from laws that plunder, because they have no clear right to be protected from bills of attainder. Political activists who have looked into the eyes of "yellow dog" Democrats know there is no more powerful political tool for liberty, than to look into the eyes of a politician and explain to him what a bill of attainder is. They have to explain why Americans are no longer "citizens" and they have to confront the fact that Americans no longer have the right to private property. I urge political activists, and political organizations to confront legislators with these facts. By presenting the bill of attainder issue into the political arena we can actually restore America back to Americans. We can end ex-post facto laws. Ex-post facto laws are bills of attainder because they suspend our civil right to be protected from the tyranny of plunder that ex- post facto laws, and bills of attainder cause. Please help us let legislators and politicians address this issue. For further information: tom@isc-durant.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: MRC Study: Networks Biased in Favor of Gun Control Date: 08 Aug 1997 23:10:52 -0500 The Media Research Center (MRC), a mass media analysis organization, released a new study that clearly documents the anti-gun bias of the major broadcast networks. An excerpt from MRC's August 8, 1997, CyberAlert, is enclosed. I urge all readers to visit their Web site and read the full report. I also recommend that readers support MRC and spread the word of their good work when possible. The appropriate URLs are included below. The full title of the report says it all. Yours in the Struggle, Bob _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| ----- Begin Included Text ----- [Image] ***MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER CYBERALERT*** No Interest in Clinton Calls; Helms a Bigot; Nets Gun It for Guns Friday, August 8, 1997 (Vol. Two; No. 125) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The July issue of MediaWatch is now online and can be accessed from the MRC home page, or more directly from: http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrc/mediawatch/1997/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ [SNIPPAGE....] 4) Network television news is overwhelmingly biased in favor of gun control advocates and against the arguments forwarded by gun rights proponents, a new study from the MRC has documented. "Gun Rights Forces Outgunned on TV: Networks Use First Amendment Rights to Promote Opponents of Second Amendment Rights," was researched by MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens and appears in the July issue of MediaWatch, now available on the MRC Web site. Here's an excerpt from the study to give you an overview of the findings: MediaWatch analysts reviewed every gun control policy story on four evening shows (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN's The World Today, and NBC Nightly News) and three morning broadcasts (ABC's Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, and NBC's Today) from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1997. In 244 gun from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1997. In 244 gun policy stories, those favoring gun control [Image] outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 157 to 10, or a ratio of almost 16 to 1 (77 were neutral). Talking heads were slightly more balanced: gun control advocates outnumbered gun-rights spokesmen 165 to 110 (40 were neutral). Analysts counted the number of pro- and anti- gun control statements by reporters in each story. Pieces with a disparity of greater than 1.5 to 1 were categorized as either for or against gun control. Stories closer than the ratio were deemed neutral.... Gun rights advocates were treated like clay pigeons in a skeet-shooting contest. Out of 103 evening news segments, pro-gun control stories outnumbered anti-gun control stories by 70 to 6, along with 27 neutral reports.... Pro-gun control talking heads were televised 99 times on evening shows, to just 67 anti-gun control spokesmen and 24 neutral soundbites.... The morning shows were also far more likely to invite gun control spokesmen like Sarah Brady than 2nd Amendment defenders like the NRA's Tanya Metaksa. Pro-gun control spokesmen were able to advocate their side three times more than the anti-gun control speakers: 37 to just 12 opponents, and four neutral spokesmen. To read the complete study, with quotes and network by network breakdowns, go to the MRC home page. The July MediaWatch is highlighted on the top of the page thanks to MRC online manager Joe Alfonsi who just got the issue up, or go directly to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrc/mediawatch/1997/mw0797st.html If you are with the media and would like more information about the study or would like to interview the study author, you can contact Geoffrey Dickens at: Gdickens@mediaresearch.org As the study proves, the Second Amendment is one civil right for which the networks favor a very narrow interpretation. -- 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. CyberAlert Archives HOME MRC News Division ----- End Included Text ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RAPTUS: MED: Vol 1/489 8.7.97: US CRITICIZES BOTH SIDES (fwd) Date: 08 Aug 1997 21:24:04 PST On Aug 7, Terry Walker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > THE MID-EAST DISPATCH > > DAILY NEWS FROM ISRAEL - ISSUE 489 - 7th August 1997 > >HEADLINES: [snip] >** 9. ISRAEL TO SELL UZIS IN USA > >Israel Military Industries Ltd. hopes to sell thousands of Uzi >semi-automatic weapons to civilians in the United States in the next few >months, an official said Thursday. > >The company received permission last month from the U.S. Bureau of >Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to market versions of the Uzi and the >Galil semi-automatic rifle after an 11-year ban on their import. > >The weapons will be marketed under a joint venture with U.S. gun >manufacturer O.F. Mossberg & Sons. > >"When we establish ourselves in the U.S. market I estimate we'll be able >to sell about 10,000 or more Uzis a year in the United States," said >Mark Schachar, marketing director of the government-owned company's >small arms division. > >He said Uzis would be available in U.S. stores late this year or early >next year. > >The import of Uzis has been barred since 1986. A 1994 U.S. law aimed at >cutting violent crime expanded the ban to include around 20 other types >of semi-automatic weapons. > >Shachar said IMI made adjustments to both weapons to accommodate the law >and would market the Uzi with a magazine that holds no more than 10 >rounds. > >He told Reuters IMI was also competing in a tender to supply the US >Secret Service with around 2,000 Uzis. {REUTERS 8/7 B} > > **** >Copyright (c) The MidEast Dispatch, 1997. The MidEast Dispatch is an >independent news service, and is not affiliated with any political party >or government agency. > >To subscribe to MED, please e-mail med-request@iipub.com with the single >word 'subscribe' in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send email >to med-request@iipub.com with the single word 'unsubscribe' in the body >of the message. If you have any questions, please write to: > >newsdesk@iipub.com >27 Heathway Court >London NW3 7TS >United Kingdom > >Tel: 44-181-458-6510, >Fax: 44-181-455-8701 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: 1911a1@gte.net Subject: Important Petition! Date: 10 Aug 1997 20:03:21 CST Hey!! Getting even one signature on this petition will help us take back our NRA. May I count on you for your help? This is an .rtf (rich text format) document, loadable into mainstream graphics-oriented wordprocessings programs (MS Word, Wordperfect 6.x, StarOffice Starwriter, et al.). If you need it in another format, please let me know quickly and I will convert it to the needed format for you. Or I could fax it to you, if necessary. Please get at least your own signature on this thing and mail it back to Leroy. Thanks!! Brad **** Forwarding note from: Leroy Pyle Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:59:16 -0500 > Can I ask a favor and have you print out a copy of this petition for signing by you and any friends at the club or range? > > This is important! Please mail them back to me in a week to 1313 N.Ritchie Ct. #2108, Chicago, IL 60610. > > Many thanx! > > Leroy -- ********************************************************************* The Paul Revere Network > http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html (312) 482-9910 (BBS) 482-9940 (FAX) 482-9960 > ********************************************************************* > Can I ask a favor and have you print out a copy of this petition for signing by you and any friends at the club or range? This is important! Please mail them back to me in a week to 1313 N.Ritchie Ct. #2108, Chicago, IL 60610. Many thanx! Leroy -- ********************************************************************* The Paul Revere Network http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html (312) 482-9910 (BBS) 482-9940 (FAX) 482-9960 ********************************************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: A kinder, gentler Army (fwd) Date: 11 Aug 1997 07:53:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [Their] warriors have stopped fighting; they remain in their strongholds. Their strength is exhausted; they have become like women. Her dwellings are set on fire; the bars of her gates are broken. (Jeremiah 51:30) NIV Our situation here in the US could just about be summed up by this verse out of Jeremiah. It's certainly true in the spiritural sense, and, day by day, it is becoming truer in the physical sense. -- A kinder, gentler Army BY JOHN LEO In the old days--10 years ago--drill sergeants were still as loud and tough as Louis Gossett Jr. in the movie An Officer and a Gentleman. Now drill sergeants are more like supportive counselors at a summer camp, eager to avoid tension, please recruits, and build self-esteem. "Stress created by physical or verbal abuse is nonproductive and prohibited," says a current Army manual, casually dismissing five or six generations of training in which stress was considered productive in turning out combat-ready troops. So niceness is in, discouraging words are out, and drill sergeants can't touch soldiers, even to check their ammunition. Under the relaxed new standards, trainees wear gym shorts, T-shirts, and sneakers. Instead of running in formation, they run on their own. Sometimes, as explained by reporter Mark Thompson in last week's issue of Time magazine, Navy recruits are given "blue cards" to hand to a trainer when they are feeling blue. They are also told it's OK to cry, and that "physically, anybody can get through boot camp." Apparently so. At Army bases, bayonet practice may be called off if the weather is too hot. On obstacle courses (many of them sensitively renamed "confidence courses"), recruits may run around some walls if climbing them is just too hard. In Marine training at Quantico, a visitor noticed a footstool placed in front of an 8-foot wall so that no trainee would fail to get over it. But if the Marine brass truly want to be nurturing, why not supply stairs, or just make it a 4-foot wall? Gen X warriors. Military people say some changes are to accommodate the "couch potato" generation. Social change plays a role, too. Today's recruits are unaccustomed to discipline and authority, easily shocked by strong words, and deeply concerned with their own feelings and self-esteem. To attract and keep volunteers in an army with a high dropout rate in basic training, the training is being adapted to generation X expectations. But the chief reason for the change is the return of mixed-gender training, which the Army tried for five years, abandoned as a failure in 1982, and reinstalled under feminist political pressure in 1994. (Marines still train separately.) Army trainees perform many drills in sneakers mostly because women were suffering high rates of injury in boots. Reconfiguring basic training so that "anybody can get through" was largely a response to women's high rates of injury and inability to meet the old standards. A 1988 Army study of 124 men and 186 women during basic training showed that women were almost twice as likely as men to get injured and spent 481 days on limited duty due to injury, compared with 99 days for the men. The Pentagon responded by lowering standards, installing some double standards, and redefining basic training "success" in terms of what the women did well. Proficiency tests used to measure basic training competence include a long list of skills that require no physical factors at all but instead measure skills such as first-aid, map reading, and putting on protective gear. Self-reported "feelings" in focus groups determine successful "soldierization" and proficiency in basic training, according to standards set by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Instead of military or combat criteria, unit cohesion was defined in largely emotional, civilian terms--whether trainees "feel very close" or "like and trust one another." Some tasks were "shredded"--parceled out to more people than were traditionally needed to perform them. For instance, carrying a stretcher, always a two-man job, now requires four people. Gender-norming swept in, too. Marine climbing ropes have a yellow line partway up where women are allowed to stop. In one Army exercise, male soldiers must do 20 push-ups, women just six. Even the throwing of grenades was gender-normed, after the discouraging finding at Parris Island that 45 percent of female marines were unable to throw grenades far enough to avoid blowing themselves up. Even more discouraging for morale, gender-norming was papered over by the new concept of "comparable effort." Under this concept, a female trainee who does worse than a male at some physical task can get scores just as good, and sometimes better. All of this eerily echoes the dumbing down, grade inflation, and collapse of belief in fairness that accompanied the arrival of affirmative action on campuses. Fake scores and the degradation of basic training are a disaster for the military. Mixed-gender training has nothing to do with combat readiness. It has to do with politics and the desire to show absolute equality even where it doesn't exist and can't. Almost no one in the military or Congress will say so, because their careers are at stake. Better to go along and create endless study commissions. Reversing the practice of mixed-gender training would "have a negative effect on the cohesion and, by extension, the readiness of our forces," a senior Defense Department official said recently. Exactly the opposite is true, of course. Despite the risks, another push to kill mixed-gender training has started. For the sake of the military's integrity, it should succeed. (c) Copyright U.S. News & World Report, Inc. All rights reserved. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in | | compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, | | "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: TWA 800 CASE CORE (fwd) Date: 11 Aug 1997 11:02:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm T W A 8 0 0 C A S E C O R E by Ian Williams Goddard In early May, Pierre Salinger received 20 Suffolk County Police reports containing the accounts of TWA 800 eyewitnesses. They were sent to him by an investigative journalist with a popular television program who wanted to get his response for their coverage of the accounts. Pierre made the reports available to researchers. The contents of those reports now appear at several Internet websites. Since May I have studied and integrated the physical events reported in those accounts with other evidence in the case to create an animated fact-based scenario of the events leading up to TWA 800's annihilation: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm This animated model reveals witness locations, line- of-sight launch-point triangulation, and events that took place before TWA 800 exploded. Every detail of the animation is based upon substantial evidence including witness accounts, radar data, and physical deformation to the plane: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm The animated scenario is a subset of the "TWA 800 Case Core" -- a webpage covering the evidentiary core of the TWA 800 Navy-missile case: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm It's a graphics intensive page, so allow a few minutes to download. Once the animation is down- loaded, it should run more smoothly and quickly. ******************************************************************* Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ___________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fighting for Our Property Rights (fwd) Date: 11 Aug 1997 19:33:13 PST On Aug 11, TheACCC@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FROM: American Constitutional Campaign Committee CONTACT: Lance R. Crowe, Chairman 1-502-782-6151 For Release on or after August 11, 1997 This week, Kentucky State Senator Richard L. (Dick) Roeding will present a proposal to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana that will help protect the property rights of millions of American citizens who live and work in areas scheduled for seizures by the UNESCO Bio-Diversity Treaty. Last year, Senator Roeding was voted "Legislator of the Year" by the national 2,500 member state legislator's group. But this year, the senator says, it will be strictly business for him at the convention. Last May, the Senators of the Commonwealth of Kentucky took time out from their work in a special legislative session to "instruct" their agents in the federal government. Senator Roeding seconded, and helped spearhead the formal Resolution, SR-35, through the Senate, and it passed without one word of dissent. The resolution specifically outlines Kentucky's opposition to the inclusion of any public or private lands in Kentucky to United Nations or UNESCO and U.S. Man in the Biosphere Programs. And by the resolution, the Kentucky Senate urged all members of Congress to oppose ratification of the United Nations Bio-Diversity Treaty, which mandates hundreds of huge UNESCO controlled biosphere reserves throughout the United States. (Full text of the resolution is available via e-mail on request.) Research by the American Constitutional Campaign Committee (ACCC) and local Kentucky citizen's organizations, shows conclusively that the U.S. and UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Committee -- a committee made up of members of 13 federal regulatory agencies and the State Department -- has no legal authority to exist. Authority for the MAB program, and all agreements between the United States and UNESCO, were withdrawn by order of the President in 1984. There has never been Congressional approval for the MAB Program, for the MAB Program to use federal land as a biosphere, or for any expenditures to be made on the MAB Program. Yet, from 1984 to the present, the MAB Committee continued operating and spending taxpayer funds. The U.S. and UNESCO MAB Program Committee also formed some 60 biosphere reserves during that time, and was instrumental in having severe land-use regulations placed on property owned by thousands of American citizens. Due to the outcry by voters across the country when ACCC first exposed the unauthorized activities of the U.S. and UNESCO Man in the Biosphere Program, Congress has included amendments to the 1998 appropriations bills of many federal agencies and departments forbidding the diverting of funds to the MAB Program. This has now become law. Today, the MAB Program publicly states that there are 47 U.S. and UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in the United States. However, there are a total of 94 separate biosphere reserves listed on their roster. (List available on request.) In most cases, humans are not allowed to enter a biosphere reserve. In a few areas, the land is still labeled as "limited use," and humans are allowed to enter momentarily, with strict restrictions. Already, (according to Congress) the total land accumulated for biosphere reserves in the United States -- land presently forbidden for any use -- equals the size of the State of Colorado. Even so, according to UNESCO and the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program information, that is not enough. In Kentucky alone, UNESCO and the MAB Committee plan to take nearly one-quarter of the State as a biosphere reserve. Senator Roeding's proposal to the American Legislative Exchange Council will have three basic parts: First, that ALEC file a demand with Congress that the biosphere reserve program be immediately suspended and all land returned to normal use by American citizens. Second, Senator Roeding will propose a call for a complete and open Congressional Investigation, with the intent of completely disclosing how and why an unauthorized committee of federal regulators were allowed to adversely affect the lives of so many Americans for thirteen straight years. And third, a call for a full accounting of how these federal agencies were able to misappropriate and misdirect taxpayer funds for this unauthorized program for thirteen consecutive years. Congress, State legislatures, local governments, or even affected citizens, are never consulted when the U.S. and UNESCO MAB Program chooses an area as a biosphere reserve. No one, except those on the MAB Committee, has ever had a vote on which lands would become a biosphere reserve. This has caused great concerns in State legislatures throughout the country. For these reasons, we expect that a large number of ALEC members will also become active in informing their constituents. The federal bureaucracy takes the position that federal land is the private property of federal agencies. This is wrong. All federal land, except for military bases and office buildings, must be open for the use of all American citizens equally. Federal land is "public" land, not the federal government's private property. It is the position of ACCC that Americans are both willing and able to act as the best stewards of our private and recreational lands. We have neither the need nor the desire to allow outside influence in the stewardship of our lands. Interference from foreign entities, such as the United Nations and its agencies, will never be tolerated. And, as is our right under the Constitution, we do not plan to permit such actions. It is the sincere recommendation of the American Constitutional Campaign Committee that both the people and the legislatures of all States of the United States join in Kentucky's quest to defend the property rights of all American citizens, as well as their unalienable and Constitutional right to life, liberty and property. /signed/ Lance R. Crowe Chairman American Constitutional Campaign Committee 5300 Scottsville Road P.O. Box 51851 Bowling Green KY 42102-6851 e-mail to: ACCC@bgn.mindspring.com Data compiled, and text written by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net For more information contact: Lance R. Crowe 1-502-782-6151 Senator Richard L. Roeding 1-606-331-1684 Craig Brown 1-606-635-5711 Lance R. Crowe, Chairman American Constitutional Campaign Committee 5300 Scottsville Road P.O. Box 51851 Bowling Green KY 42102-6851 ACCC@bgn.mindspring.com Visit our web site at: http://mmc.cns.net/accc/accc.html [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Subject: Part 2, JFK Autopsy Photog Assassinated (fwd) Date: 12 Aug 1997 07:14:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From jad1@IDT.NET Fri Aug 1 20:15:27 1997 ____ ____ --____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____-- ---- ---- ---- T H E P E O P L E'S S P E L L B R E A K E R ____ ____ ____ __---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----__ ---- ---- News They Never Told You .... News They'll Never Tell You DATE: _________ __, ____ PRICE: __ CENTS THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK STATE * * * * * MORNING EDITION * * * * * EDITOR: John DiNardo Part 2, JFK Autopsy Photog Assassinated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From the free airwaves of the People's Worldwide broadcasting station, WWCR shortwave, transmitting at 5.070 megahertz: WORLD OF PROPHECY, broadcast at 8:00 PM EST, Saturday April 20, 1996: [A tape recording of this broadcast can be obtained by calling 1(800) 234-9673.] TEXE MARRS: So, in other words, they were actually teaching ... they were going under the operational premise that it was, indeed, a conspiracy, and let's say, institutional terrorism of government assassination. It was like a pattern to use [for instruction]. COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: That is correct! And, during one of the coffee breaks, I overheard one of the [C.I.A.] instructors say to the other one, "Well, it went pretty well in Dallas. Didn't it?" And, from then on, I just assumed -- as much as I admired President Kennedy -- that he must have been doing something that was not good for this government, because there I was, taking this kind of training, and being trained specifically to kill Americans overseas. The Mafia lists were the ones being used [to kill Americans] in the continental United States. We were being used overseas. So, I just determined from that that President Kennedy had just done something that wasn't good for this nation. And that's why they did it to him. TEXE MARRS: Colonel Marvin, let's look at that mindset that you had. I think that's really important. You know, we've seen what happened up at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, where this [F.B.I.] sniper, Lon Horiuchi ... You know, somebody mentioned that this guy is an Evangelical Christian, and he home-schools his child. But he didn't have any compunction about blowing the head off of this mother holding her baby in her arms: Randy Weaver's wife, Vickie. We've seen these things. The same thing at the Branch Davidian complex. I'm sure that some of these men had that kind of a mindset. And, by the way, I want to rush to say that I probably had the same kind of mindset as an Air Force officer. You know, you're patriotic. You're trained to do things. COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: Texe, you hit the right word there: "patriotic". The stronger a patriot you are, the more important it is to you that you do whatever is necessary for your flag, for your country. It makes you the most susceptible type of person for this kind of training. You are the ultimate warrior. You're out there to do for your country what nobody else is willing to do. I had no qualms about it at all. In fact, I was asked, approximately a year-and-a-half later, to kill an American Naval officer, as he was, supposedly, a traitor, about to give secrets to the enemy. It turned out that these "secrets" were the photos of the real autopsy of President John F. Kennedy. And "the enemy" was us! Anyway, at that particular time and place -- the first week in August of 1965 -- when that C.I.A. agent asked me to kill Lieutenant Commander William Bruce Pitzer, I agreed to do it, at first. Those were all voluntary assignments, by the way. And then he told me that it was to be done here in the United States. Well, that wasn't my mission. When I took my training, I volunteered to do this kind of thing overseas where it could be covered, as far as the family goes. I had a wife and three children. If I were to accept that mission to kill Commander Pitzer right here in the United States, I would have been dropped from the rolls immediately as a deserter so that it would cover me for taking off and taking care of that mission. If I made it safely back, then I would turn myself in and come back up through the system. That's the way it works. I refused that mission because, like I told the C.I.A. agent, "That's what you're supposed to be asking the Mafia to do." Well, at that point in time, the C.I.A. was not on good terms with those people in the Mafia who provided the "hit" personnel. So another man, who went through the same kind of training that I did, whose name is David H. Vanik, was approached by that same C.I.A. agent on that same afternoon underneath the pine trees at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was a single officer. He was a Green Beret. I don't know, very honestly, Texe, if the C.I.A. even asked him to do that -- to kill Lieutenant Commander Pitzer. All I know is that I never saw Vanech after that day. And Commander Pitzer was killed in October of 1966, in his office at Bethesda Naval Hospital. His wife, whom I talked to, assured me that he did, in fact, have the actual autopsy photographs of President Kennedy. And he was scared. He didn't know what to do with them. And that's what happened to him. TEXE MARRS: Let's go over that, a point at a time, here. You're there at Fort Bragg, North Carolina -- right? -- in Fayetteville, North Carolina. COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: Yes. TEXE MARRS: You're a Green Beret, in the Special Forces. You had volunteered for "assassination and terrorist" training. COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: Right. TEXE MARRS: And then one day, a C.I.A. agent .... How did they contact you? Did they go through the headquarters of the Green Berets and set up an appointment, or what? COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: It was through my commanding officer, Colonel C.W. Patton. The C.I.A. had agents there all the time at Fort Bragg, in the Special Warfare Center Headquarters. They took over a certain office area where there was only C.I.A. The building they used was surrounded by a double barbed wire fence, and there were a couple of guard dogs in there. It was not unusual for "Company" [C.I.A.] people to be at Smoke Bomb Hill, which was the Special Forces, the Green Berets' area. Colonel C.W. Patton -- who lives down in Florida, and whom I've spoken to within the last year -- called me up to his office one day in the first week of August of 1965. It was his last week as commander of Special Forces Group there (he went to the Pentagon from there). And he said, "Dan, go out and meet the `Company' man standing there underneath the pine trees, waiting to talk to you." ~~ TO BE CONTINUED ~~ Col. Daniel Marvin needs our help in bringing this vital truth to the American People. Please contact him at: 715 Hector St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 272-0473 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To receive an episode in your e-mailbox, three times a week, of one fascinating series after another, just send an e-mail message with the word "SUBSCRIBE" in the "Subject" line, to jad@locust.etext.org My postings to Usenet are often blocked by cancelbot censors. Therefore, I am depending on you to post this vital information to Usenet newsgroups and to various mailing lists and web sites. If you can, please also post hardcopies on the bulletin boards of campus halls, churches, supermarkets, laundromats, etc. -- any place where concerned citizens can read this vital information. Our people's need for Paul Reveres and Ben Franklins is as urgent today as it was 222 years ago. John DiNardo jad@locust.etext.org ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// | If we seriously listen to this God within us [conscience, if you will], | | we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, | | the path of more effort rather than less. | | .... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold | | back from this work .... Like every one of our ancestors before us, | | we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness. | | | | M. Scott Peck | | THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED | ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Part 1, JFK Autopsy Photog Assassinated (fwd) Date: 12 Aug 1997 07:14:40 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From jad1@IDT.NET Fri Aug 1 20:14:56 1997 ____ ____ --____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____-- ---- ---- ---- T H E P E O P L E'S S P E L L B R E A K E R ____ ____ ____ __---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----__ ---- ---- News They Never Told You .... News They'll Never Tell You DATE: _________ __, ____ PRICE: __ CENTS THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA * * * * * MORNING EDITION * * * * * EDITOR: John DiNardo Part 1, JFK Autopsy Photog Assassinated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From the free airwaves of the People's Worldwide broadcasting station, WWCR shortwave, transmitting at 5.070 megahertz: WORLD OF PROPHECY, broadcast at 8:00 PM EST, Saturday April 20, 1996: [A tape recording of this broadcast can be obtained by calling 1(800) 234-9673.] TEXE MARRS: My guest is Colonel Daniel Marvin. He was with the United States Army Special Forces. A lot of folks just call them "the Green Berets." He is now retired and living in Ithaca, New York. We're going to be talking on the subject: "I Was Asked to Kill For the C.I.A." Colonel Marvin, welcome to WORLD OF PROPHECY. COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: Good afternoon to you, sir. It's a pleasure to be on-board with you. You are a man of truth, and I like to believe that the Lord leads us to come together -- those of us who are searching and fighting for the truth, and that He will protect us, as long as we do so. TEXE MARRS: That is really the key. As long as we do so, He will protect us. Well, let's go back to your military career in the U.S. Army Green Berets. How did you manage to join the Green Berets, and what does that mean to you? COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: I had read a lot about the Green Berets, and I was stationed on the same post with them when I was in the 82nd Airborne Division as a young sergeant. And we always thought of them as "the beady-eyed killers." That's what we called them in those days. But then I read about President Kennedy and how he had really come to have a great amount of respect for the Green Berets. He personally authorized the wearing of the Green Beret. He spoke of them as the answer to a lot of problems in a lot of small countries where, to him, the Green Berets were and should be, and should always be, not only a very tough military force, but also a Peace Corps with an M-16 rifle. And when President Kennedy was assassinated on the 22nd day of November 1963, I was down in Yuma Pines in Arizona, testing parachutes. The news came over the radio in my car while I was on my way home to lunch with my wife Kate. And, that afternoon, I told Kate, "I've got to join the Green Berets because they were important to him." That was the day that I volunteered -- in the end of November. And, by the end of December, I was at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on Smoke Bomb Hill, which is the training ground for the U.S. Army Green Berets. I started training in January. TEXE MARRS: Well, evidently, from what you told me and from the material you sent me, you then went on to volunteer for "assassination and terrorist training" while at this guerilla warfare school. What about that? COLONEL DANIEL MARVIN: Well, the guerilla warfare school ... If you saw the movie or read the book, THE GREEN BERETS, the training within the guerilla warfare school is to prepare you to do all of that. I learned special demolitions, booby traps, all these different things that are used in different areas of the World for unconventional warfare. But at a certain point in time during an officer's training, they would ask for volunteers for assassination training. There were six of us who volunteered. I always liked danger, from the time when I was a young boy growing up on the South Side of Chicago, where, if you've got to face it anyway, you might as well enjoy it. That's probably the way that I figured it. So I raised my hand and I took assassination training by C.I.A. personnel at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in the spring of 1964, just months after President Kennedy was assassinated. And, as unusual as it was, it was even more significant when we learned -- at least by listening to our instructors -- that the C.I.A. itself may have been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. And, in fact, they used the assassination of President Kennedy as a prime example of how to develop the strategy for the assassination of a World leader as a conspiracy, while making it look like some "lone nut" did it. We saw 16 millimeter moving pictures that we assumed were taken by the C.I.A. of the assassination, on the ground there at Dallas. It may have been the Zapruder Film. I do not know. We also saw some still photographs. [JD: This could not be the Zapruder Film because that is an 8 millimeter film. This 16 millimeter film must be a secret film taken by the C.I.A.] We were told that there were actually four shooters. There was one on the roof of the lower part of the [Texas School] Book Depository, and there was one shooter who was in front of and to the right of the [President's] vehicle. And I'm not sure whether it was [a shooter] on the "grassy knoll" area that they were speaking of or, as some people have reported, [a shooter firing] out of a manhole to the right-front of the vehicle. And there were two other shooters who were stationed with spotters on the two routes that they would take to go to the hospital. And the spotter was to determine -- using high-powered binoculars -- whether or not the President would survive ... you know, go to the hospital and survive it ... or if he was a goner. And, if the spotter determined that he would survive, then one of those two shooters -- depending upon which of the two routes that the Secret Service took -- would finish him off right there. ~~ TO BE CONTINUED ~~ Col. Daniel Marvin needs our help in his crusade to bring this vital truth to the American People. Please contact him at: 715 Hector St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 272-0473 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To receive an episode in your e-mailbox, three times a week, of one fascinating series after another, just send an e-mail message with the word "SUBSCRIBE" in the "Subject" line, to jad@locust.etext.org My postings to Usenet are often blocked by cancelbot censors. Therefore, I am depending on you to post this vital information to Usenet newsgroups and to various mailing lists and web sites. If you can, please also post hardcopies on the bulletin boards of campus halls, churches, supermarkets, laundromats, etc. -- any place where concerned citizens can read this vital information. Our people's need for Paul Reveres and Ben Franklins is as urgent today as it was 222 years ago. John DiNardo jad@locust.etext.org ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// | If we seriously listen to this God within us [conscience, if you will], | | we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, | | the path of more effort rather than less. | | .... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold | | back from this work .... Like every one of our ancestors before us, | | we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness. | | | | M. Scott Peck | | THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED | ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Fed money laundry service Date: 12 Aug 1997 07:50:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- originally from http://www.latimes.com/sbin/iarecord?NS-doc-path=/httpd/docs/HOME/NEWS/APONL INE/WASHDC/slugs1370.htm&NS-doc-offset=78&NS-collection=AP-Online&NS-search- set=/var/tmp/31b41/aaaa003Ogb41965 Critic Claims Fed Coverup PREV STORY By MARTIN CRUTSINGER= AP Economics Writer= NEXT STORY WASHINGTON (AP) Federal Reserve employees in Los Angeles, which operates one of the biggest NEWS BRIEFS currency processing centers in the country, were ordered to falsify reports to cover up INTERNATIONAL $178 million in discrepancies, a longtime Fed congressional critic alleged Monday. NATION Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, the senior Democrat ENTERTAINMENT on the House Banking Committee, said that he had asked the General Accounting Office to BUSINESS & conduct an investigation. His allegations are FINANCE the latest in a string of reports about sloppy management at the Fed. WALL STREET ``We cannot allow the central bank of the SPORTS United States, the main custodian of the nation's currency and coin, to commit continual HEALTH & and serious errors in reporting its currency SCIENCE and coin operations,'' Gonzalez, D-Texas, said in a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Gonzalez said he had been informed by sources, whom he did not identify, that Fed personnel in Los Angeles had been instructed to eliminate discrepancies in currency flows at the Los Angeles vault that in the last three months of 1995 totaled $178 million. These accounting gimmicks covered up shortages of $5.8 million in October and $111.1 million in December between two different reports. In November, the report that was changed actually came in $61.8 million higher than the other report. That left a net shortfall of $55 million for the three months. ``The information I have received is that the falsification of the errors in the currency reports were known to personnel at the Los Angeles branch for a long period of time and were explicitly ordered by the management,'' Gonzalez said. Gonzalez said he also had received information about $45 million in other reporting errors. Responding to the charges, John F. Moore, chief operating officer of the San Francisco Fed, which oversees the Los Angeles currency operations, said in a letter to Gonzalez that ``in January of this year, department management discovered during a periodic review that inaccuracies existed in our data gathering techniques for some of the cash series reports.'' He said new procedures had been implemented to correct the problems. Fed officials said the reporting discrepancies in no way suggested that money was missing, only that internal bookkeeping records did not match up. In a statement issued late Monday, Moore said that the discrepancy problem ``in no way suggests any wider problem.'' He also disputed Gonzalez' allegation that Fed employees had been ordered to alter the reports to cover up the discrepancies. But Gonzalez said the latest incident underscored his longstanding belief that the central bank needed closer scrutiny of its operations from the General Accounting Office, Congress' auditing arm. The Fed has more than 25,000 employees and an annual operating budget of $2 billion. Unlike other government agencies, the Fed is allowed by law to set its own budget as a way to protect the Fed's political independence as it makes it interest-rate decisions. Earlier this year, the GAO issued a 200-page critical report charging that Fed expenses have surged by 50 percent since 1988 at a time when the rest of government was cutting back. A separate GAO audit of operations at the Dallas Fed concluded that some controls over currency operations were so lax that the Dallas Fed would not be able to detect theft or losses of paper money. Another GAO report criticized contracts operation of the Fed's check transfer operations in Boston, calling into question the award of $2 million in annual contracts to a single vendor without competitive bidding. Greenspan, whose nomination to a third term as Fed chairman is being held up in the Senate by liberal Democrats unhappy with his interest-rate policies, said in an April reply that the GAO was overstating the extent of the Fed's problems. ``The board of governors takes exception to the broad implication of the draft report that the Federal Reserve has not exercised appropriate budget constraint,'' he said. ``We believe our diligence has resulted in a level of cost effectiveness and performance that equals'' the best-run private companies. ====================================================================== A few years back I had a temp assignment job at a Citibank/Citicorp processing center near where I live, which involved reconciling the payroll taxes received from business customers with the amounts actuall paid over to the Federal Reserve Bank for the IRS to apply to the withholding accounts of the employee-taxpayers. Not only did the amounts not "reconcile", but I could not even obtain the necessary records from the data processing department to do a proper reconciliation. I just played Tetris on a very nice Macintosh for 2 weeks before I quit waiting. I believe there was ample opportunity to launder money through these accounts due to the lack of proper recordkeeping. If I were laundering the dough, I'd take the money in as "payroll tax deposit", but not pay it over to the FRB, but send it *somewhere else*. Then obfuscate the records so nobody can make head nor tails out of the mess, and rely on the business customers actual payroll tax returns to be sure that what actually belonged to employees got properly credited to their withholding account. For all we know, based on what I'm hearing about the corruption in the IRS, maybe they had inside help there, and maybe even at the FRB, and the business customers themselves...who knows??? ?Quien Sabe?, as my dear departed Gramma used to say in Spanish. Most of the regular employees at Citibank were basically hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil types who wouldn't have paid any attention to a scam if they even saw it. For myself, I got the hell out of there. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx ====================================================================== Kalliste Inc. 1280 Terminal Way, Suite 3 Reno, NV 89502 Tel.: (702) 333-1139 Fax: (702) 329-0852 September 19, 1995 Alan Greenspan, Chairman The Federal Reserve System 20th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20551 Dear Mr. Greenspan, I understand that last month you received a letter from Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, requesting information regarding Federal Reserve participation in a national money-laundering operation. Could you please supply me with a copy of this letter? You may reach me at the above numbers or at 702-828-1565 (phone/fax). Sincerely, J. Orlin Grabbe *************** Some relevant information: Federal Reserve System 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3201 Chairman Alan Greespan (202) 452-3204 Public Affairs Asistant to the Board Joseph R. Coyne (202) 452-3819 Facsimile Newt Gingrich 2428 Rayburn House Office Building Washington D.C. 20515 (202) 225-4501 Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (202) 225-4656 Facsimile - -------- REPORTNUM: AIMD-96-146 TITLE: Federal Reserve Banks: Inaccurate Reporting of Currency at the Los Angeles Branch DATE: 09/30/96 from the GAO report: For 6 judgmentally selected days in the October through December 1995 period, we attempted to perform limited reviews of the L.A. Bank's reconciliations. These reconciliations compare the Bank's general ledger balances (which are used to prepare the daily balance sheet) to its cash inventory system (which contains the physical inventory file). However, our efforts to perform limited reviews of these 6 days were hindered because the L.A. Bank could not locate some of the requested data. For instance, the L.A. Bank could not locate the report containing the ending balance of the amount of currency in the vault as reported in its cash inventory system for one of the days selected in our review. To enhance our understanding of the Bank's reconciliation process, we also did a walkthrough of 1-day's reconciliation efforts with bank employees in June 1996. In addition, for October through December 1995, we examined transactions in general ledger accounts that were used to account for reconciling differences found that were either written off or were temporarily held aside for further research and disposition. We gathered information on Bank procedures for resolving out-of-balance situations and differences between amounts reported and actually received from banks. Because the L.A. Bank could not provide the general ledger transaction history for its cash accounts, we could not determine whether the accounts and activity provided to us by the Bank represented the universe of cash activity. Thus, we only tested the transactions provided to us. Further, we did not perform a review of (1) the L.A. Bank's computer security controls for preventing unauthorized access to its general ledger and cash inventory system or (2) its physical access controls for ensuring that the money it manages is protected from theft and misappropriation. ... RESULTS IN BRIEF ====================================================================== We found that the October, November, and December 1995 monthly currency activity reports of the L.A. Bank were prepared and reported incorrectly. We confirmed that the reported receipts from currency deposited in the L.A. Bank by depository institutions (receipts from circulation) were not taken from the L.A. Bank's cash inventory records (in other words, independently determined) but rather "forced" to ensure that the currency activity report agreed with the daily balance sheet for the last day of the month. For example, the report filed for December 1995 had a forced amount of $3.771 billion for receipts from circulation to ensure that the ending balance for cash on hand would equal $6.7 billion as reported in the daily balance sheet at the end of December. In contrast, when the L.A. Bank recently attempted to independently determine receipts from circulation for December 1995 (as it should have done at the time it prepared the monthly currency activity report), it calculated this amount at $3.882 billion, a difference of $111 million from the forced amount on its original monthly currency report for December. As discussed further on page 10, the $111 million is a net figure and represents a number of errors that were initially obscured because of the L.A. Bank's practice of forcing the receipts from circulation in preparing the monthly currency activity report. These reports were prepared incorrectly at the direction of the L.A. Bank's management. L.A. Bank officials stated that the practice of forcing the reports to agree had been in place for some time. This practice, however, is not consistent with guidance on preparing the monthly currency activity report issued by the Board of Governors, which, in essence, calls for the amounts to be independently determined and reconciled. This guidance calls for comparing the calculated ending balance (the beginning balance plus receipts less expenditures equals the calculated ending balance) on the monthly currency activity report to the amount in the vault on the last day of the month, as reported in the daily balance sheet, to ensure that they agree. These amounts should agree, and, if they do not, differences that are greater than the allowed $3 million tolerance for errors, or for amounts less than the tolerance if requested, should be researched and corrected or explained. The L.A. Bank's practice of forcing certain amounts made ending cash balances of the two reports agree when they actually did not. ... We found that the problems in currency reporting are linked to the limitations in the design of the underlying cash inventory system. A key limitation is the inability to link the detailed transactions posted in the stand-alone inventory transaction files to the postings in the inventory file, which shows cash in the vault by denomination. Thus, these problems may also have occurred in the San Francisco District Bank and its other branches and the other two FRB districts and their related branches that use this system. The L.A. Bank's inability to precisely summarize currency activity from its cash inventory records raises serious questions about the integrity of its accounting and internal controls. A comprehensive review of these controls and accounting is needed. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board needs to take appropriate steps to assure itself that such problems do not exist in the accounting and internal controls at other FRBs. Also see http://www.amcity.com/sanantonio/stories/101496/story8.html ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: McVeigh is not entitled to a new trial Date: 12 Aug 1997 08:26:07 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [IMAGE] McVeigh is denied new trial Judge sets formal death sentencing Thursday 08/12/97 By Victoria Loe / The Dallas Morning News Timothy McVeigh is not entitled to a new trial and will be formally sentenced Thursday to die for the Oklahoma City bombing, the judge in the case ruled Monday. A jury found Mr. McVeigh guilty June 2 and decreed 11 days later that he should die for the attack, which killed 168 people. U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch must pronounce the sentence, but he is bound by law to adhere to the jury's decision. Mr. McVeigh's lawyers argued in papers filed last month that he should receive a new trial because the jury was tainted by damaging pretrial publicity, because of alleged juror misconduct and because Judge Matsch kept the defense from presenting evidence of a wider conspiracy. Judge Matsch, in his three-page decision Monday, said he had dealt with each of those issues before or during the trial and would not reverse his earlier rulings. He ordered that Mr. McVeigh appear in his Denver courtroom at 10 a.m. Thursday to be sentenced. At that proceeding, Mr. McVeigh, who did not take the stand in his own defense, will be offered the chance to make a statement. "I don't know if he will [speak] or not," his chief counsel, Stephen Jones, said Monday. Prosecutors, who had opposed the request for a new trial, declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Once Mr. McVeigh is sentenced, his lawyers can begin the process of appealing his conviction to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal analysts estimate that that process will take at least three or four years. Mr. McVeigh's co-defendant, Terry Nichols, is scheduled to be tried beginning Sept. 29 in Denver. He, too, faces murder and conspiracy charges that carry a possible death sentence. In their motion for a new trial, Mr. McVeigh's lawyers argued that his conviction and death sentence were "inevitable and ... easily predictable." They said Judge Matsch erred by not delaying the trial after The Dallas Morning News and Playboy magazine reported that Mr. McVeigh had acknowledged to his defense team that he committed the bombing. Jurors' answers to questions during jury selection showed they had been poisoned by the publicity, the lawyers said. They also argued that the judge overlooked an incident in which one juror reportedly remarked to another during the trial that "I think we all know what the verdict should be." In addition, Mr. McVeigh's lawyers said, Judge Matsch was too lenient in letting prosecutors call dozens of victims to testify about the horror of the blast. On the other hand, the lawyers said, the judge was too strict in limiting defense evidence of bungling by the FBI laboratory and of a possible broader bombing plot. "The court's expansive and inclusive interpretation of [federal court rules] ... which allowed admission of victim-impact testimony ... stood in stark contrast to the restrictive and suffocatingly narrow interpretation that was applied to exclude relevant evidence offered by the defense," the McVeigh team argued. Prosecutors, in their response to the defense motion, said Judge Matsch had acted properly in each instance, producing a trial "that was scrupulously fair." Although no defendant is guaranteed a perfect trial, they said, "this court ensured the McVeigh trial not only was fair, but indeed was close to perfect." © 1997 The Dallas Morning News About us ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: (fwd) Interview (fwd) Date: 12 Aug 1997 22:09:44 PST I couldn't possibly have come up with a better comment.....:-) "On Aug 12, JR wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I got this from another e-mail group. I love it!! JR > FORWARDED On Wed, 13 Aug 97 03:47 BST-1, fullbore@cix.compulink.co.uk > (Robin Holding) wrote: > > Excerpt from a recent live radio interview on one of the regional Welsh > stations: > > A female newscaster is interviewing the leader of a Youth club: > > Interviewer: So, Mr Jones, what are you going to do with > these children on this adventure holiday? > > Jones: We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, > canoeing, archery, shooting... > > Interviewer: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it? > > Jones: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the > range > > Interviewer: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity > to be teaching children? > > Jones: I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper range > discipline before they even touch a firearm. > > Interviewer: But your equipping them to become violent killers. > > Jones: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one > are you? > > Needless to say, the interview was terminated almost immediately...... > > Robin. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Subject: More on the WOD: IBD: Treasury's Newest Assault On Privacy (fwd) Date: 13 Aug 1997 07:39:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Treasury's Newest Assault On Privacy Richard W. Rahn Investor's Business Daily The Treasury Department wants to greatly expand its control over how you spend your money. The government says it needs a heavier hand to combat illegal money laundering. But new regulations will do little besides waste time and further erode law-abiding citizens' privacy. Proposed new rules would force businesses that provide check cashing, currency exchange, money orders, ''smart cards'' or traveler's checks to report transactions of as little as $500 per day, per person. Money transmitters and their agents also would be required to ''report and retain'' records of transactions over $750 whenever money is sent outside the United States. But the compliance costs of such money surveillance outweigh any possible benefit. Hundreds of thousands of American businesses and individuals would be affected. Even Treasury Department bureaucrats figure the new regulations would cost tens of millions of dollars. And that's almost certainly an understatement. We've been down this road before. The rules currently in effect were also supposed to stop crime. Clearly, they have not. Existing regulations, which generally have reporting thresholds from $3,000 to $10,000, apply mostly to banks. Officials apparently believe that the cure for failed regulation is more regulation. Treasury has already tested the proposed rules, with mixed results. Last August, it imposed a temporary order in New York regulating currency transactions with Colombia. Transfers there quickly fell about 30%. Some of the decline was likely from legitimate wire transferers fearful of branding family or friends as suspected money- launderers. But even if the rest was a drop in criminal activity, it proves only that criminals always seek to avoid detection, with or without new regulations. Also, the number of transmissions under the $750 reporting threshold doubled. A Treasury report surmised that ''launderers are now moving large sums through other money transmitters in other cities.'' The order expired last month. During the year-long experiment, 22 search warrants were served. But for all that time and effort, at the expense of the privacy of many legitimate wire transferers, only five arrests were made. Make no mistake, the proposed new regulations, as broad and oppressive as they are, pose no real barrier to any reasonably competent criminal. But that will become obvious before long. Then Treasury officials will likely say that the threshold is still too high, and that the bar should be lower still. In the era of electronic commerce, the government will need to know everything or it will only know what people want it to know - there is no middle ground. And as bad as drug gangs and organized crime are, law-abiding Americans should not be forced to cede every remaining scrap of their financial privacy to make nothing more than a tiny dent in criminal activity. The government assumes that the regulations will be understandable to the average person - an assumption not supported by the proposals. It assumes that the correct forms will always be available and that people will be able to get speedy, clear and correct answers to their questions -an assumption that anyone who's phoned the IRS will have more than a little reason to doubt. And once all of this detailed, sensitive information is collected, how will it be kept secure? Just imagine the damage that could be done if the financial data the government proposes to collect fall into the wrong hands. It wouldn't be the first time. Clearly, the costs of Treasury's proposed regulatory regime are terribly high. Worse still, it is based on the naive assumption that paying such a high cost will produce results that justify it. If drug dealers can transport drugs without being detected, does anyone outside Treasury doubt that they'll find a way to send money back through the same or similar channels? The proposed regulations exhibit an Alice- in-Wonderland attitude toward the behavior of drug dealers, coupled with the most cavalier attitude toward individual liberties and financial privacy. Congress should block the proposed regulations and repeal the existing Bank Secrecy Act, under which such rules are possible. Our freedoms and our privacy are much too important to be compromised merely to make money-laundering more costly and inconvenient for criminals. Richard W. Rahn is president of Novecon Corp. and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. (C) Copyright 1997 Investors Business Daily, Inc. Metadata: E/IBD E/SN1 E/EDIT In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: FEMA in Clearwater County: The Saga Continues (fwd) Date: 13 Aug 1997 08:18:55 -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. ------=_NextPart_000_01BCA77D.17D64440 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Front page of Lewiston Tribune Aug. 12, 1997. Continuing saga of FEMA in Clearwater County. Idaho State Police documents paint a different picture of the July 18 raid by agents of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the Clearwater County flood command center at Orofino. Instead of federal agents using strong-arm tactics, as alleged by several local officials, the documents indicate Clearwater County officials, including Sheriff Nick Albers, exhibited the most contentious behavior. One ISP document says "Sheriff Albers' conduct was very unprofessional and he was an embarrassment to the law enforcement community." The Lewiston Tribune obtained the ISP documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Albers has declined comment about the FEMA raid on advice from Clearwater County Prosecutor John Swayne. Swayne said Monday that the surprise arrival of FEMA agents at the flood command center was like putting a "stick in a hornet's nest" and some people may have simply reacted out of indignation toward the manner in which the federal search warrant was executed. "Nick was agitated," Swayne said, and maintained that Clearwater County has always tried to cooperate fully with FEMA in all matters of business. But according to the ISP documents, Albers several times referred to FEMA agents as "You f---ing feds" and at one point told one of his deputies, a canine officer, to walk his dog around the agents' cars "so the dog could pee on their tires." One document alleges Albers' behavior on that Friday morning "fueled the flames of the commissioners and they joined in on the sheriff's comments." The names of the county commissioners are not mentioned in the documents. The ISP documents consist of a memo written by ISP Lt. M. Peterson and two reports filed by Cpl. Marc Santo and Cpl. Kevin Rouse. The two corporals were assigned to assist FEMA agents on the service of the search warrant. More than 40 boxes of documents were taken from the command center as part of what has been described as a FEMA investigation into allegations of attempts to defraud the federal government. A federal grand jury in Boise may begin hearing testimony today by a number of persons subpoenaed, including several employees of the command center. The center was set up after the 1996 floods to help coordinate relief efforts and handle what Swayne and other Clearwater County officials have called a "mountain" of paperwork associated with reimbursement of more than $5 million worth of disaster funds through FEMA. Albers was appointed by the county commissioners as incident commander at the center. The center, which had been in the basement of the Clearwater County Courthouse, was relocated, along with documents, to the county's marine storage building prior to the July 18 raid. According to the ISP memo, Michael J. Janiga, a special agent in charge of investigations for FEMA, called ISP headquarters July 17 to make an appointment to discuss the pending raid. "The assistance from ISP would be outside perimeter and to keep the peace," the memo reads. Peterson also reports in the memo that he was contacted by Robert Sobba, director of the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement. There was discussion about what impact the surprise raid would have on relationships between ISP and Albers' office. "After some discussion, Director Sobba suggested that Corporal Rouse go to the sheriff's residence and advise him of the search warrant after the agents were in the (command center) building," the memo reads. Janiga also volunteered to go to Albers' home to "request the sheriff's assistance in the recovery" of documents. "This was suggested by the U.S. Attorney's office that has worked with Sheriff Albers in the past," the memo reads. Rouse, in his report, says that upon approaching Albers' house, he noticed the sheriff was already driving away in his patrol car as the raid was under way. Rouse and Janiga followed Albers, who was talking to his office by radio. "I got on Clearwater County's radio frequency and asked Sheriff Albers if he would please pull over," Rouse reported. Albers stopped and a conversation about the search warrant seeking documents took place along U.S. Highway 12. "Sheriff Albers responded that the documents were always available for FEMA to look over and that all they ever wanted to do was cooperate and help out," Rouse reported. Once at the command center, where other FEMA agents were busying carrying off documents, Albers tone reportedly changed. "Sheriff Albers proceeded to become verbal with the FEMA agents. He stated that the citizens of Clearwater County were tired of them coming in and pushing them around, tired of their strong-arm tactics, and various comments to that effect," Rouse reported. Despite those comments, Albers also served as a peace-maker at one point, according to the ISP documents. "One of the county commissioners got very verbally aggressive with one of the FEMA agents and was demanding an explanation of the search warrant," Rouse reported. "He got aggressive enough in his demeanor that Sheriff Albers walked over and put his hand on his shoulder and physically turned him away from the FEMA agent ..." Swayne was reported to also have arrived during the raid. "He looked over the search warrant, had a conversation with the commissioners and Sheriff Albers and proceeded to leave," Rouse wrote. Amid it all, Rouse reported, "The FEMA agents were extremely professional. They went about their business with a minimum of discussion or talk with any of the people involved." Santo also lauded the FEMA agents. "I felt the FEMA agents acted professionally and politely under hostile conditions and should be applauded for their efforts," Santo wrote. Summing up the atmosphere surrounding the raid, Rouse wrote that a commissioner apparently agreed with Albers and also told the canine deputy to let his dog have at the FEMA tires. "At that point," Rouse wrote, (the deputy) "did let the dog out and proceeded to walk directly over toward the FEMA vehicles with the dog following, which seemed to be the tone for the morning." ------=_NextPart_000_01BCA77D.17D64440 Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: Content-Description:

Front page of Lewiston Tribune Aug. 12, = 1997. Continuing saga of FEMA in Clearwater County.



Idaho = State Police documents paint a different picture of the July 18 raid by = agents of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the = Clearwater County flood command center at Orofino.

Instead of = federal agents using strong-arm tactics, as alleged by several local = officials, the documents indicate Clearwater County officials, including = Sheriff Nick Albers, exhibited the most contentious behavior. =

One ISP document says "Sheriff Albers' conduct was very = unprofessional and he was an embarrassment to the law enforcement = community."

The Lewiston Tribune obtained the ISP documents = through the Freedom of Information Act.

Albers has declined = comment about the FEMA raid on advice from Clearwater County Prosecutor = John Swayne.

Swayne said Monday that the surprise arrival of = FEMA agents at the flood command center was like putting a "stick = in a hornet's nest" and some people may have simply reacted out of = indignation toward the manner in which the federal search warrant was = executed.

"Nick was agitated," Swayne said, and = maintained that Clearwater County has always tried to cooperate fully = with FEMA in all matters of business.

But according to the ISP = documents, Albers several times referred to FEMA agents as "You = f---ing feds" and at one point told one of his deputies, a canine = officer, to walk his dog around the agents' cars "so the dog could = pee on their tires."

One document alleges Albers' behavior = on that Friday morning "fueled the flames of the commissioners and = they joined in on the sheriff's comments." The names of the county = commissioners are not mentioned in the documents.

The ISP = documents consist of a memo written by ISP Lt. M. Peterson and two = reports filed by Cpl. Marc Santo and Cpl. Kevin Rouse. The two corporals = were assigned to assist FEMA agents on the service of the search = warrant.

More than 40 boxes of documents were taken from the = command center as part of what has been described as a FEMA = investigation into allegations of attempts to defraud the federal = government. A federal grand jury in Boise may begin hearing testimony = today by a number of persons subpoenaed, including several employees of = the command center.

The center was set up after the 1996 floods = to help coordinate relief efforts and handle what Swayne and other = Clearwater County officials have called a "mountain" of = paperwork associated with reimbursement of more than $5 million worth of = disaster funds through FEMA.

Albers was appointed by the county = commissioners as incident commander at the center. The center, which had = been in the basement of the Clearwater County Courthouse, was relocated, = along with documents, to the county's marine storage building prior to = the July 18 raid.

According to the ISP memo, Michael J. Janiga, = a special agent in charge of investigations for FEMA, called ISP = headquarters July 17 to make an appointment to discuss the pending raid. =

"The assistance from ISP would be outside perimeter and to = keep the peace," the memo reads.

Peterson also reports in = the memo that he was contacted by Robert Sobba, director of the Idaho = Department of Law Enforcement. There was discussion about what impact = the surprise raid would have on relationships between ISP and Albers' = office.

"After some discussion, Director Sobba suggested = that Corporal Rouse go to the sheriff's residence and advise him of the = search warrant after the agents were in the (command center) = building," the memo reads.

Janiga also volunteered to go to = Albers' home to "request the sheriff's assistance in the = recovery" of documents. "This was suggested by the U.S. = Attorney's office that has worked with Sheriff Albers in the past," = the memo reads.

Rouse, in his report, says that upon approaching = Albers' house, he noticed the sheriff was already driving away in his = patrol car as the raid was under way. Rouse and Janiga followed Albers, = who was talking to his office by radio.

"I got on = Clearwater County's radio frequency and asked Sheriff Albers if he would = please pull over," Rouse reported. Albers stopped and a = conversation about the search warrant seeking documents took place along = U.S. Highway 12.

"Sheriff Albers responded that the = documents were always available for FEMA to look over and that all they = ever wanted to do was cooperate and help out," Rouse reported. =

Once at the command center, where other FEMA agents were busying = carrying off documents, Albers tone reportedly changed. =

"Sheriff Albers proceeded to become verbal with the FEMA = agents. He stated that the citizens of Clearwater County were tired of = them coming in and pushing them around, tired of their strong-arm = tactics, and various comments to that effect," Rouse reported. =

Despite those comments, Albers also served as a peace-maker at = one point, according to the ISP documents.

"One of the = county commissioners got very verbally aggressive with one of the FEMA = agents and was demanding an explanation of the search warrant," = Rouse reported. "He got aggressive enough in his demeanor that = Sheriff Albers walked over and put his hand on his shoulder and = physically turned him away from the FEMA agent ..."

Swayne = was reported to also have arrived during the raid. "He looked over = the search warrant, had a conversation with the commissioners and = Sheriff Albers and proceeded to leave," Rouse wrote.

Amid = it all, Rouse reported, "The FEMA agents were extremely = professional. They went about their business with a minimum of = discussion or talk with any of the people involved."

Santo = also lauded the FEMA agents. "I felt the FEMA agents acted = professionally and politely under hostile conditions and should be = applauded for their efforts," Santo wrote.

Summing up the = atmosphere surrounding the raid, Rouse wrote that a commissioner = apparently agreed with Albers and also told the canine deputy to let his = dog have at the FEMA tires.

"At that point," Rouse = wrote, (the deputy) "did let the dog out and proceeded to walk = directly over toward the FEMA vehicles with the dog following, which = seemed to be the tone for the morning."



------=_NextPart_000_01BCA77D.17D64440-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: NYT on ICC 8/13/97 Date: 13 Aug 1997 14:22:27 -0400 Folks: This is a forward of a NYT Article regarding the establishment of an International Criminal Court. For all that are interested... Rachel >New York Times >Page A10 >August 13, 1997 > > >World Criminal Court Having Painful Birth > >By BARBARA CROSSETTE > >UNITED NATIONS -- For two weeks, through diplomacy's August >doldrums, legal experts from scores of countries have been closeted >in basement conference rooms here, working hard on a blueprint for >the world's first international criminal court. > >The establishment of a permanent court to judge the most terrible of mass >crimes -- including genocide and the massacres that have come to >characterize the ethnic conflicts of recent decades -- is a goal that has >eluded >members of the United Nations for half a century. > >It is now within a year of becoming reality, if the remaining trepidations of >some nations can be overcome. > >The obstacles could still be formidable. Many countries, including the >United States, are wary of a criminal court with powers that cross borders. >There is not complete agreement on what crimes the court would take on. >There are wide differences of opinion on how crimes would be taken to the >court, in particular whether a chief prosecutor would have the authority to >originate cases. > >The Clinton administration backs the proposed court, which would be >established by international treaty. But U.S. participation would require the >consent of a Republican-controlled Congress, where many international >issues have been bogged down by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. > >U.S. diplomats and legal experts agree that chances that an international >criminal court will emerge from a treaty conference scheduled for next June >in Rome have improved. > >"Three years ago, almost all major powers opposed it," said William Pace, >chairman of a coalition of human rights and legal groups. "Now virtually all >governments have affirmed support. We are optimistic that this could be the >last major international organization established in this century, which has >been by all accounts the bloodiest, most war-ridden century in all of >history." > >The absence of a court to deal with figures like Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge >leader whose reign of terror left more than a million Cambodians dead, has >been widely noted. And the creation of tribunals to deal with war criminals >in the Balkans and Rwanda has laid the groundwork for a more lasting >forum. > >"The establishment of the Yugoslavia tribunal and the tribunal for Rwanda >has shown that we can operate on an international level," said Gabrielle Kirk >McDonald, an American judge serving on the Balkans tribunal in The >Hague. She is taking part in the discussions here. > >"We at the Yugoslavia tribunal brought together 11 judges, all from different >systems in different countries, and we were able to draft rules of procedure >and evidence that we believe met the needs of all of the systems," said Ms. >McDonald, a civil rights lawyer and former federal judge in Texas. > >The tribunal juggled common law, civil law and military justice systems, she >said. > >"We basically created an international code of criminal procedure," she said. >"I think we have been able to conduct a fair trial in an international >setting." >The only flaw in the system, she added, is that the present tribunals lack the >power to order or make arrests, slowing the judicial process considerably. > >David Scheffer, who last week was sworn in as the Clinton administration's >special envoy dealing with war crimes, said Tuesday that there were three >major areas of concern to the United States: how cases get to the court, >whether or when international law would complement or supersede national >systems and how the court's procedures are defined. > >Washington wants the Security Council to be the arbiter of what cases >would go to the international court, a view at odds with nearly all other >countries. Europeans and some Latin American nations would give >international prosecutors wide latitude in bringing cases. Other nations, >especially in Asia, want governments to have some control over all stages of >the court's activities. > >"You cannot have a system that tries to end-run the Security Council," >Scheffer told reporters at a briefing Tuesday. > >In the developing world, U.S. insistence on Security Council jurisdiction >raises fears that Washington would use its influence to choose which cases it >would allow the court to hear. The United States and the other permanent >Council members -- Britain, China, France and Russia -- could use the veto >to limit jurisdiction. > >"The international criminal court could be used to harass nations of the >south," Connie Ngondi, executive director of Kenya's branch of the >International Commission of Jurists, said Monday. She added that there was >also apprehension in Africa that an international criminal court would have >too much power to intrude in a country's internal affairs. > >The United States insists that the court's jurisdiction be limited to cases of >genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, with sexual assault built >into the definitions. Scheffer said he would meet with representatives of >women's legal organizations this week to address concerns about >procedures and language that could be important to safeguarding women's >rights. > >But the administration opposes the inclusion of international terrorism and >organized crime, which many other countries wanted to bring into the >court's purview. > >The American Bar Association will make a formal recommendation on the >court at a meeting early next year. The association initially supported >including terrorism, said David Stoelting, co-chairman of its coordinating >committee on the court. But after noting the State Department's objections, >he said the association "may adjust some points." > >Tuesday, Scheffer outlined the problems that Washington had with too >broad a jurisdiction for the court. > >"There is a reality, and the reality is that the United States is a global >military >power and presence," he said. "Other countries are not. We are. > >"Our military forces are often called upon to engage overseas in conflict >situations, for purposes of humanitarian intervention, to rescue hostages, to >bring out American citizens from threatening environments, to deal with >terrorists. We have to be extremely careful that this proposal does not limit >the capacity of our armed forces to legitimately operate internationally. > >"We have to be careful that it does not open up opportunities for endless >frivolous complaints to be lodged against the United States as a global >military power." > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Int'l Criminal Court update Date: 14 Aug 1997 01:49:45 -0400 Yet another update from the ICC. Note that some states want to remove the "burden of proof" and have the ICC act on "good faith". Amazing. The ICC isn't in existence yet, and they're already expanding the powers to oppressive proportions. :-( Rachel >From: "NGO Coalition for an ICC (Rik Panganiban)" >Reply-To: "NGO Coalition for an ICC (Rik Panganiban)" > >TO: icc-info network >FR: NGO Coalition for an ICC >RE: Working Group on Complementarity and Trigger Mechanisms > > >Below is a brief report on Working Group 3 dealing with the subjects of >Complementarity and Trigger Mechanisms. A report on the Procedures Working >Group will follow shortly. A more general report on the entire PrepCom >will be prepared and distributed following the close of this session on >Friday August 15. > >................................................... > >Summary of the discussions in the Working Group on >Complementarity and General Principles > >The Preparatory Committee meeting on the Establishment of an International >Criminal Court (ICC) was declared open by the Chair, Adriaan Bos of the >Netherlands on the morning of August 4, 1997. A great number of states >were represented, generally with larger delegations than in the past. More >than 100 NGO representatives are present and monitoring the discussions. > >With regards to Complementarity (the term used to reflect the >jurisdictional relationship between the ICC and the national courts), the >Chair explained that complementarity touched on articles 1, 4, 26, 34, 35, >36, 42, 51 and 53 of the draft statute prepared by the International Law >Commission (ILC). Most of these articles however, deal with the procedures >by which complementarity may be reflected. The discussion has therefore >been focused on articles 35 and 42. > >Article 35 >Challenges to Admissibility > >Article 35 indicates the grounds on the basis of which the Court may decide >that a case before it is inadmissible. > >Most delegations expressed support for including all grounds of >inadmissibility in one article. > >States had different views with regards to the criteria to be used by the >Court in determining the inadmissibility of a case before the ICC. Certain >states spoke in favor of more general criteria such as "good faith" on >behalf of the national courts or a "manifest willingness to exempt the >persons involved of any criminal responsibility". It was pointed out >however, that these criteria failed to cover situations where states were >not able to proceed or duly investigate cases or situations at hand. Other >states therefore spoke in favor of more objective criteria to be >specifically enumerated in the article such as unreasonable delay in the >proceedings or extradition, lack of impartiality or independence in the >national courts, lack of diligent prosecution and lack of respect for >fundamental rights of the accused in the national courts. > >It was suggested that the burden of proof in article 35 be reversed so as >to avoid the situation of the "ICC putting national courts on trial". A >majority of states however, opposed this suggestion for practical reasons >and maintained that the burden of proof should remain on states to prove >they were effectively exercising their obligation to prosecute. > >A number of delegations spoke in favor of deleting subparagraph (c) of this >article, considering it to be superflous if the jurisdiction of the Court >would be limited to the core crimes. > >One delegation invited states that had experienced national amnesties to >speak out on this point, as amnesties may be a factor for consideration in >the question of admissibility. One state later explained that amnesties >could provide a mechanism to facilitate the restoration of the rule of law, >the normality of situations characterized by conflict and hostility. >Another state however, suggested that amnesties may not be appropriate for >these 'most serious of serious crimes'. It was generally agreed that >amnesties should not serve the purpose of shielding the perpetrators from >international criminal responsibility. > >With regards to which states should have the authority to challenge the >admissibility of a case before the ICC certain states explained that the >concept of "interested states" was too wide. They suggested limiting these >states to those that may have jurisdiction over the crime. > >The debate on complementarity has continued in an informal working group >chaired by the Canadian delegation. Efforts are being made to consolidate >the various proposals in order to agree on a final text ready for >submission to the Diplomatic Conference. > >Articles 21 and 22 >Trigger Mechanisms > >With regards to article 21, a great number of states voiced their support >for extending the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to cover all core >crimes, and not just the crime of genocide as presently provided for in the >ILC draft. These states explained that there was no reason to distinguish >between the crime of genocide and the other core crimes and that these >crimes frequently overlapped. The statutes of the ICTFY and the ICTR were >cited as precedents for this line of reasoning. It was suggested that >failure to extend the inherent jurisdiction of the Court would deprive the >Court of its ability to be seized by war crimes, crimes against humanity >and the crime of aggression, and would generally undermine the credibility >and effectiveness of the Court. Several states expressed the need to avoid >the creation of an ICC 'a la carte'. Those states therefore suggesting >deleting paragraph 22 that provides for the "opt-in" regime, at least with >regards to the core crimes. They left open the possibility of including >the opt in regime for treaty crimes, were these to be included in the >jurisdiction of the Court. > >A minority of states however argued in favor of maintaining the "opt-in" >regime, stating that its inclusion would ensure wider adherence of states >to the statute. > >Article 23 >The role of the Security Council > >This article was debated at length, the relationship of the Security >Council to the ICC being of great concern to all delegations. > >Most states spoke in favor of retaining paragraph 1 that provides for >Security Council referrals of situations to the Court. The Security >Council being the primary organ responsible for the maintenance of >international peace and security, states felt it was both logical and >necessary to retain this paragraph. A number of states also expressed >their support for including in this paragraph an obligation to accompany a >referral by the Security Council by all relevant documents. > >With regards to paragraph 2, most states felt that were aggression to be >included as a core crime, this article could be retained. > >As for paragraph 3 , an overwhelming majority of delegations agreed that as >presently worded, in the ILC draft, it would subject the ICC to the >political influences of the Security Council. Certain states called for >its deletion, arguing that to retain it would severely undermine the >independence and credibility of the Court. These states explained that >there were at present scores of situations that the Security Council was >'seized with'. The ICJ was mentioned in support of these arguments, having >decided that a case was admissible before it even if the situation was at >the same time being dealt with by the Security Council. > >One delegation proposed reversing the burden of this article in requiring >the Security Council, in order to preclude the prosecution of a case that >it was seized with by the ICC, to make a positive decision. A great number >of states, including a member of the Permanent Five of the Security Council >expressed interest in this proposal. Any blocking by the Security Council >of cases should they stressed be carried out in a positive, transparent >manner reflecting the votes of each state. > >Article 25 and the Role of the Prosecutor > >The dual complaint system under this article, one for genocide and one for >the other core crimes, was considered by most states as undesirable. >Moreover most states argued that there was no reason to require that the >complainant state party, in the case of genocide, be a party to the 1948 >Genocide Convention. > >Those states that had previously argued in favor of extending the inherent >jurisdiction of the ICC to all core crimes, explained that the reference to >article 22 was superfluous and could be deleted. > >Many states agreed that that the complaint mechanism as provided for in >article 25 was too narrow and needed to be expanded. These delegations >argued that states may for a variety of reasons be reluctant to lodge >complaints with the ICC. It was therefore necessary to expand the >complaint mechanism by giving the Prosecutor the authority to initiate >investigation ex officio. Again the ICTFY and ICTR were mentioned as >precedents. States in favor of this proposal explained that there were >sufficient procedural safeguards in the statute to avoid the 'loose cannon' >or 'paranoid' Prosecutor that a small number of states feared. > >Finally, with regards to article 25, it was also suggested by a number of >states that any state party should be able to bring a case before the >Court. There was no reason to limit the complaint mechanism to 'interested >states'. > >There are still two morning sessions left at which the Chair hopes to >introduce a final text on both Complementarity and Trigger Mechanisms in >order to narrow the proposals even further. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IRS audits conservative think tanks Date: 14 Aug 1997 12:13:54 -0500 (CDT) National Center for Policy Analysis POLICY DIGEST Thursday, August 14, 1997 In Today's News A POLITICAL AGENDA AT THE IRS? The Internal Revenue Service has been accused of selective audits of conservative groups critical of the Clinton administration. Since President Clinton came into office, some 20 conservative nonprofit groups have been targeted for IRS audits. * Under tax law, issue-oriented groups can receive tax-deductible contributions if they don't lobby on specific legislation or endorse political candidates. * The Heritage Foundation reports the IRS gave it only five days to provide a stack of papers and information that stood 75 feet high. * Heritage says the agency demanded "a list of all studies, why the issues were chosen, who decided to cover the issues, who wrote the issues and who decided to use those writers." The Landmark Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm, submitted a request to the IRS in January 1997 for copies of any and all documentation by outside individuals or groups seeking audits or investigations of tax-exempt think tanks -- information that should be available under the Freedom of Information Act. Landmark was finally forced to file suit for release of the documents in June, after five months of delay. After seven months, the IRS now claims the information Landmark seeks is private. Source: Editorial, "Still Stonewalling at the IRS," Investor's Business Daily, August 14, 1997. For more about the Landmark Foundation go to http://www.landmarklegal.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Invitation to a Beheading, Part II (fwd) Date: 15 Aug 1997 08:27:16 -0500 (CDT) by Jon Katz Every writer or critic has the right - the obligation, even - to define his or her own sense of what is ethical and right. I can't presume to tell others what to do, only to try to deine my own moral stance and stick to it. I can't say for sure that I'm correct, only describe what feels comfortable for me. Journalists and critics are outsiders, by tradition and, I believer, by obligation. Journalism was conceived in America as a check on power, not an adjunct of it. The idea was for the press to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted. Journalists belong outside the tent pissing in, not inside the tent making policy, nibbling hot dogs, or advising the powerful. Their insights and observations belong to their readers, viewers and browsers, not to elites at four-star restaurants or at posh conference centers. They shouldn't socialize with the muckety-mucks they write about or criticize, or go off on private retreats to yak about who's going to run the world and how, or kiss Bill Gates' feet in his sprawling mansion in Redmond. Journalists aren't actors; they don't belong in movies taking bit parts. Journalists aren't entertainers; they don't belong on Crossfire taking money to pretend to take the liberal or conservative position on a given issue. Journalists aren't pundits. They don't belong on TV spouting conventional wisdoms in sound bites. Journalists aren't public speakers or corporate amusement. They shouldn't take payments, undisclosed or disclosed, from corporations, think tanks, or lobbying groups that they cover or might cover. When even a handful of journalists do this, all are compromised, since the public has no way of knowing who is being influenced and who isn't. Personally, I don't go on panels to share my "wisdom;" what little I know or think, my readers get it first. I don't accept speaking fees. I try to help other reporters seeking information, but except when promoting books - unlike Thomas Pynchon, I couldn't sell them if I didn't - I don't appear on TV. And I sure as hell don't plan to be flown to Chicago to talk new media and national political power with various poobahs. In fact, I was shocked to find myself on this list. I fancy myself far outside that pale. But whether I'm right or wrong about that, I don't belong at this conference. I don't want to be divvying up the world or helping others plan strategic thinking in the digital age. My first, overpowering impulse was to cleanse myself by sharing the invitation with all of you and declining, publicly and instantly. This accomplishes nothing other than making me feel better, and perhaps providing some insight into why revolutionary and free cultures like this don't stay that way for very long - because there is such an enormous impulse to control and direct them by the sort of people who fought the Cold War and mastermind military policy. I don't believe some of the other journalists who've been invited - including the executive editor of Wired - belong there either. Some are among the best and brightest in the information spectrum. I hope they don't go. They, too, belong outside the tent. Here is the list of "invitees" to the Center for Strategic and International Studies two-day conference on "The Information Revolution: Impact on the Foundations of National Power," to be held 24-25 September. Several "invitees" have already accepted. This list is reprinted as it was sent to me. 1. The Honorable Lamar Alexander, Empower America 2. The Honorable Haley Barbour, Barbour, Griffith and Rogers 3. The Honorable Warren Batts, National Association of Manufacturers 4. Dr. William Bennett, Empower America 5. Dr. Michael Binder, Canadian Ministry of Information 6. The Honorable David Boren, the University of Oklahoma 7. James Burke, Independent Author 8. Joseph Califano, National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse at Columbia Univ. 9. Kathleen deLaski, America Online 10. Dr. Yuri Demchenko, Kiev Polytechnc Institute 11. Datuk Law Hieng Ding, Ministry of Science, Technology & Environment (Singapore) 12. Dr. Joe Duffy, United States Information Agency 13. Professor Amitai Etzoni, The George Washington University 14. James Fallows, US News & World Report 15. Dr. Kenneth Flamm, Brookings Institution 16. Dr. Howard Frank, DARPA 17. Thomas Friedman, The New York Times 18. Fred Friendly, PBS 19. Bob Galvin, Motorola 20. Dr. Leslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations 21. George Gilder, Gilder Technology Group 22. Ambassador William Grey III, United Negro College Fund 23. M. Jean-Marie Guehenno, Cour des Comptes 24. David Halberstam, author 25. Dr. W. Daniel Hills, Walt Disney Imagineering 26. David Horowitz, Center for the Study of Popular Culture 27. Arianna Huffington, the Center for Effective Compassion 28. The Honorable Anita Jones, the University of Virginia 29. Dr. Robert Kahn, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives 30. Professor Marvin Kalb, John F. Kennedy School of Government 31. Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly 32. Dr. Sid Karin, San Diego Supercomputer 33. Jon Katz, Wired Magazine 34. Ambassador Bilahari Kausekan, Singapore Mission to the UN 35. John Keegan, The Daily Telegraph 36. Professor George Kennan, Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University 37. Kevin Kelly, Wired magazine 38. Morton Kondracke, Roll Call 39. William Kristol, The Weekly Standard 40. Robert Krulwich, ABC News 41. Jack Lang, Mayor, Blois (France) 42. Ms. Emily Lau, Democracy Party (Hong Kong) 43. Dr. Joshua Lederberg, The Rockefeller University 44. Steven Levy, Newsweek magazine 45. Bernard Biautaud, Business Objects 46. Veran Metic, B92 Radio, Belgrade 47. The Honorable Paul Nitze, Johns Hopkins University 48. The Honorable Sam Nunn, King and Spalding Law Firm, Washington, DC 49. The Right Honorable Chris Patten, Conservative Party (Great Britain) 50. Dr. Arno Penzias, Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies 51. Clyde Prestowitz, Economic Strategy Institute Dear conference sponsors: I don't wish to be rude, but I'll pass. I can't really think of any other way to respond. In fact, I promise not to attend this conference, or any like it, ever. Should I ever break that pledge - there are no secrets on the Web - I will happily submit to the public disemboweling I will richly deserve. Whatever I wrote, thought, said, or did to get invited to this thing, I apologize, and will work to do better. I'm afraid this conference, and many of the people invited to it, strike me as the antithesis of the free spirit and democratic nature of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Our interests might be better served not by gathering to discuss media and the preservation of national and political security and power, but by luring a number of these panelists onto a secret space transport device - perhaps one like that used by Dr. Ellie Arroway in Contact - and catapulting them into deepest space so that this culture might survive a while longer in freedom and a thrilling sense of discovery and exploration. Sincerely, Jon Katz ------------ This article appeared originally in HotWired. Copyright 1993-97 Wired Ventures, Inc. and Affiliated Companies. All rights reserved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: AP: No Charges in Ruby Ridge Case (fwd) Date: 15 Aug 1997 14:01:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Well, now. I guess we can't expect any different from the "Just Us" department. I'd say the message is pretty much loud and clear: Federal officials can do whatever they want--taking bribes, refusing to perform their sworn duties, destroying the paper trails, messing with evidence, lying in court and murdering citizens. And the "Just Us" department will find that nothing is wrong, ever, no matter what. In the meantime, we the sheeple have to obey every single law, regulation, order, presidential/dictator edit, or we will be punished with everything the federal government can throw at us. I wonder how long they think we're going to put up with this? Patty Source http://wire.ap.org/APwire/pages/tables/?STORYOID=206b.5518&FRONTID=NATIONAL& LASTTIME=1997%2d08%2d15+12%3a39%3a16%2e458919%2d04%3a00&SITE=AP&SLOC=AP&SKEY =FALLSOFAGAPGRITBARDGLOM&SLOG=tables 08/15/1997 12:37 EST Feds: No Charges in Ruby Ridge Case By JAMES ROWLEY Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department today closed its investigation into whether the FBI's former deputy director tried to obstruct an inquiry into the deadly 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, saying it lacked evidence to bring criminal charges, governent officials said. The Justice Department decided not to bring charges against former FBI Deputy Director Larry Potts or Danny Coulson, Potts' deputy during the 1992 siege at the remote cabin of white supremacist Randy Weaver, said government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. A formal Justice Department announcement of the decision was expected later in the day. Potts, picked by FBI Director Louis Freeh to be the bureau's No. 2 official, and Coulson had been suspended from their jobs during the department's investigation. Prosecutors were investigating whether the FBI violated procedures for using deadly force and whether officials destroyed an after-action report of the siege. During the August 1992 standoff with Weaver, a bureau sniper shot and killed Weaver's wife, Vicki, and wounded Weaver and a friend, Kevin L. Harris. FBI sharpshooters went to the scene after Weaver's son, Samuel, and a deputy U.S. marshal, William F. Degan, were killed in a shootout. Marshals had gone to arrest Randy Weaver for failing to appear in court to face gun sale charges. The Justice Department informed lawmakers and lawyers for the FBI agents that its review did not warrant any further criminal charges, but it left open the possibility of disciplinary action. The department said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press, ``The available evidence does not support further criminal prosecution of FBI officials ... from the August 1992 incident at Ruby Ridge.'' But the decision that Potts, Coulson, and two other officials will not face federal criminal prosecution ``does not preclude the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against these individuals or other FBI officials,'' the statement said. Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility will, if appropriate, recommend to the department ``any disciplinary sanctions, up to and including termination of employment. The FBI will not be the decision-maker regarding any disciplinary sanctions,'' said the statement. Howard Pearl, a lawyer for Larry Potts, said he was happy with the decision. ``It is the result we always knew would happen. But it is always good to actually be notified,'' Pearl said. One former FBI headquarters manager, E. Michael Kahoe, pleaded guilty last year to obstructing justice, admitting that he destroyed the after-action critique of the siege. Potts had denied through his attorney any knowledge of the after-action report or any role in its destruction. Prosecutors had accused Kahoe of destroying the document so that it would not be available for prosecutors when Weaver and an associate were tried on charges of killing Degan. The two were later acquitted. Such information would also have to be turned over to defense lawyers in the case. Home | US News | World News | Business | Sports | Index | Search | Help =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: 3 on a match ? Date: 15 Aug 1997 23:49:22 -0500 Grand jury doesn't indict Marine in border shooting Jurors say Marines followed rules of engagement August 14, 1997 Web posted at: 11:25 p.m. EDT (0325 GMT) MARFA, Texas (CNN) -- A grand jury refused Thursday to indict Marine Cpl. Clemente Banuelos in the killing of Texas teen-ager Ezequiel Hernandez, whom the Marine shot while on a drug patrol along the U.S.-Mexico border. The grand jurors issued a statement saying they were convinced that Banuelos and three other Marines followed the proper rules of engagement on May 20 when they encountered Hernandez tending his goats near the Rio Grande. The military contended during the two-day hearing that Banuelos was acting in self-defense when he opened fire with his M-16 rifle, shooting Hernandez once in the side. Three of the four Marines involved were offered immunity, and testified Thursday before the grand jury. Banuelos remained at Camp Pendleton, California. After testifying, one of the Marines told reporters that Banuelos was a very good Marine and that he'd want Banuelos on his side any time. Banuelos' attorney has said that his client was trying to protect another patrol member, Lance Cpl. James Matthew Blood, at whom Hernandez was aiming. The Marines said Hernandez shot twice at them with a .22-caliber rifle and was about to fire again when Banuelos killed him. Texas Rangers and local prosecutors investigating the shooting had said they had evidence that conflicts with the Marines' reports. An autopsy report indicated Hernandez wasn't facing Banuelos when he was shot. ------------- FBI senior officials won't be charged in Ruby Ridge siege August 15, 1997 Web posted at: 2:31 p.m. EDT (1831 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- No criminal charges will be filed against senior FBI officials in connection with the deadly 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, the Justice Department said Friday. The agency said it lacked enough evidence to bring criminal charges against former FBI Deputy Director Larry Potts and his chief aide, Danny Coulson, for the siege at white supremacist Randy Weaver's cabin in a remote mountainous area of Idaho. -------- quoting a dissenting opinion from the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in a 1928 wiretapping case, McVeigh said: "'Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill it teaches the people by its example.' That's all I have, Your Honor The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: (fwd) Finally....a sheriff with GUTS!!!! (fwd) Date: 05 Aug 1997 22:43:24 PST On Aug 15, JR wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I picked this up off another list. Thought everyone would enjoy it. JR > Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (Schuetzen) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > X-No-Archive: Yes > > FORWARDED On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:16:57 -0800, "Glen R. & Melinda Sue > Parshall" wrote: > > -------- Forwarded message -------- > Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:39:49 -0700 > From: localsov@bellatlantic.net > Subject: Sheriff Throws Feds Out of County > > Some excellent news from Wyoming. I'll keep you all updated on > how this proceeds. > > PAC > > SHERIFF BOOTS FEDS FROM HIS COUNTY > by Phil Hamby > > Knoxville Journal, August 7-13, 1997 pA1 and A6 > > (http://www.knoxnews.to) Ph (423) 546-5353 FAX 0858 > > Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week > that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, > District of Wyoming, he how has a written policy that forbids > federal officials from entering his county and exercising > authority over county residents unless he is notified first of > their intentions. > > After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them > permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating > within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth > in the U.S. Constitution. > > The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. > When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the > Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever." > He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction > in my county unless I grant it to them." > > Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had > ruled then state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state > constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law > enforcement official in the county. > > Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. > Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the > geographic territories where the federal government has > jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "the powers not > delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor > prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States > respectively, or to the people." > > Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited > powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to > exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides. > > "Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the > Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to > keep them out or ask them to leave." > > Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on > the definition of the world "sovereign," which is defined by > Webster's as "paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. > Independent: a sovereign State." > > Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and > running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally > searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, > restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, > without a valid warrant and without first following due process > of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen. > > As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to > see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in > court. > > Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has > not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account > or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out > of his county. > > Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said > he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of > the citizens of his county. > > He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by > and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government > employees at all levels of government are also bound by and > should be expected to obey certain laws. > > As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn > County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and > government officials alike act within the law and their > designated powers. > > Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose > only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to > serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long > as he wants to be. > > Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the > same stance. > > c. 1997 The Knoxville Journal > > -- > > Steve Washam Walla Walla, Washington sew@valint.net > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Children in Cheyenne [are] taught in their schools, > Believe in the Country, don't break any rules. > But the TV is on and they know something's wrong. > Someone must tell them to keep pushing on. > > Can you hear me Wyoming? > -- YOU are the Country; > -- YOU are the Nation; > -- YOU will survive! > > Can you hear me Wyoming? > -- YOU are the Country; > -- YOU are the Nation; > -- YOU will survive! > > as sung by John Stewart and John Denver > > ============================================================================== > To unsubscribe send Message: unsubscribe; To: > heartland-request@proliberty.com > ============================================================================== > > -- > _______________________________________ > Charles L Hamilton (chasm@insync.net) Houston, TX > X-No-Archive: Yes > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net > with the word help in the message body. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Jim Jones,Jonestown, French Guyana and the CIA Date: 16 Aug 1997 09:17:31 -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. --PART.BOUNDARY.0.11988.emout14.mail.aol.com.871701141 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: <0_11988_871701141@emout14.mail.aol.com.11674> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is also a submission for Parascope: (www.parascope.com) --PART.BOUNDARY.0.11988.emout14.mail.aol.com.871701141 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; NAME="jnstown.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: <0_11988_871701141@emout14.mail.aol.com.11675> Content-Description: A Konformist Special: The Jonestown Jenocide Robert Sterling A LONG, LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY FAR, FAR AWAY... John Travolta, 70's icon thanks to "Welcome Back Kotter", "Saturday = Night Fever", and "Grease", is enjoying a incredible comeback in = critical and commercial smashes such as "Pulp Fiction" and "Face = Off". Speaking of "Saturday Night Fever", the Bee Gees are in the = Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The Black Crowes and Lenny Kravitz wear = bell-bottoms and platform shoes. The biggest box-office attraction = this spring was "Star Wars", and "The Eagles Greatest Hits, Volume = One" has now sold 24-million copies in the U.S. And the biggest = concerts of last year were by KISS and The Sex Pistols. It should be obvious by now that America is in the middle of a huge = love affair with the seventies, the wacky and wild decade that was a = by-product of the sixties rebellion. But all is not well from that = era of long ago. Take the combative anti-gay Anita Bryant politics, = for example. Or how about double-digit inflation and high = unemployment rates? And then there's that whole ABBA thing. One recent ugly element of the seventies has returned in the news = recently: krazy kults led by psychotic would-be dictators, a la Jim = Jones and The People's Temple. Of course, there is the Aum Supreme = cult of Japan, the "Branch Davidians" of Waco, Texas, and, with the = most disturbing sense of deja vu, the 39 "suicides" of members of = Heaven's Gate. Yes, we were told from the korporate media (with a = strong dab of paranoia), the threat of such uncontrolled cults = preying on the weakest members of society is certainly something to = beware, especially now that cults have the nefarious internet as an = ally. The undercurrent of such talk, of course, is that something = must be done about these cults, or a whole bunch of mass suicides = are sure to ensue. What happened at Rancho Santa Fe (as well as in Waco and Tokyo) is = still not completely clear, but the real story behind the events in = Guyana are fairly evident during an honest inspection of the facts. = And when one compares the level of deceit in the reportage of the = deaths in Jonestown, there is little doubt that the "mainstream" = korporate media is an unreliable source for truth in this area. THE SUICIDE HOAX Let's start with the biggest lie of the whole Jonestown affair: that = this was a mass suicide. This has been repeated so many times that = it is accepted as fact, and the association is so great that when = most people hear "Jonestown", the first thing which pops in their = head is "Kool-Aid". The association is false. The source of the "Kool-Aid Suicide" stories was the U.S. State = Department, who presented the story immediately after the "suicides" = were reported as though it was the only obvious truth. A U.S. Army = Spokesman pronounced with complete authority, "No autopsies are = needed. The cause of death is not an issue here." The bodies were = then allowed to rot in the jungle, making it impossible for American = officials to perform any such unneeded autopsy. Despite the lack of need, Dr. C. Leslie Mootoo, the top Guyanese = pathologist, was at Jonestown hours after the deaths, and, refusing = the assistance of U.S. pathologists, accompanied the teams that = examined the bodies. His conclusions? Dr. Mootoo found fresh = needle marks at the back of the left shoulder blades on 80 - 90% of = the victims. Others had been shot or strangled. A surviving = witness stated that those who resisted were forced by armed guards = to comply. Dr. Mootoo's opinion, and that of the Guyanese grand = jury investigating Jonestown, was that all but three (only two of = which were "suicides") were murdered by "persons unknown." If one was to go over the deaths in Auschwitz, it is almost a = certainty, considering the horrendous conditions those who were = there were under, that 0.2 % of all deaths could be attributed to = suicides. Yet, if anyone was to argue that Auschwitz was a suicide = camp housing a bunch of religious freaks and not the compounds of = murder that they were, they would (rightfully) be condemned for = intellectual dishonesty, and their motives would be questioned. No = such actions are taken on those who continue to insist the same = about Jonestown, despite how the facts speak to the contrary. BODY COUNT BAD MATH But that is merely the beginning of the deception. The original = count of numbers of deaths was 408 (an odd number to use if the = number was an estimate), with the added claim that 700 had fled into = the jungle. The final total was changed to 913. To explain this = rather minor difference in arithmetic, American authorities first = explained that those backward ignorant Guyanese "could not count." = Perhaps because the first "official" explanation of the bad math was = so insulting, it was then proposed that they missed a pile of = bodies, as if a pile of dead bodies is something easily overlooked. = Finally, the "official" explanation that settled the whole question = was presented: bodies were stacked on top of each other. Of the 150 photos taken of the massacre, not one shows any body = lying under any others. Those who first worked on the bodies, to = release the gasses of decay, had to puncture the dead, making it = unlikely that they missed any of the dead. Even without these = facts, one must wonder how 408 bodies - 82 belonging to children - = could cover 505 others. With minor exceptions, pictures show the dead were found in neat = rows, face down. The pictures also show drag marks leading to the = bodies, indicating that victims were murdered elsewhere and placed = there by someone else. These facts have lead to another likely conclusion: 408 was indeed = the correct original body count. The other 505 were hunted down and = slaughtered, then dragged back. But who would do such a thing? And why? And why were American = officials giving such deceptive answers about Jonestown? To answer = these questions, one must unravel the mystery of who Jim Jones was. GANGSTER WITH A BIBLE On May 13, 1931, James Warren Jones was born in Indiana, the state = that would later give us whiny hard-rock megalomaniac Axl Rose and = dim-witted heartbeat-away-from-President Dan Quayle. His father was = in the Ku Klux Klan. Jones became a Bible-thumping "faith healer", with a side business = of selling monkeys. He used wet chicken livers as evidence of = cancer which he removed by "divine powers." He adopted eight = children, both black and white. Already the stench of criminal = activity surrounded him, and his landlady referred to him as "A = gangster who used the Bible instead of a gun." Fortunately for = Jones, the local police chief at the time was Dan Mitrione, a friend = from childhood. Mitrione kept him from being arrested or run out of = town. Mitrione would later enter the International Police Academy, a CIA = front for training counterinsurgency and torture techniques. Despite having few sources for known funds, Jones found the money to = travel with his wife and family to Brazil in 1961. Coincidentally, = Mitrione was there as well, having advanced quickly in the IPA, and, = while training security forces in torture and assassination, had = beggars kidnapped so he could keep in practice. Mitrione was later = kidnapped and murdered by guerrillas in Uruguay, which became the = basis of the Costa Gavras film "State of Siege". Jones made regular = trips to Belo Horizonte, site of CIA headquarters in Brazil - and = where Mitrione was located. Apparently, this wasn't the only curious intelligence link to Jones. = He claimed he was part of U.S. Naval Intelligence to some of his = neighbors. The U.S. Embassy provided him with transportation, = groceries, and a large home. "Some people here believed he was an = agent for the American CIA," one person was quoted as saying. = Considering his dear friendship to Mitrione and the funding of = "ministries" in Latin America by the CIA, the belief makes quite a = bit of sense. In any case, according to his neighbor, Jones "lived like a rich = man." MADMAN OR MESSIAH IN UKIAH? Soon after the JFK assassination, Jones returned to the states with = $10,000. In 1965, he formed the first People's Temple in Ukiah, = California, and set up Happy Havens Rest Home. Without trained = personnel or proper licensing, Jones' camp drew in elderly, = prisoners, people from mental institutions, and 150 foster children = transferred often by court order. Among those who contacted him: = "missionaries" from World Vision (an international evangelical order = that often fronts for the CIA), the local chapter head to the John = Birch Society, and leaders of the Republican party, whom his = "church" members did voter organization and fund-raising for the = Dick Nixon '68 campaign. His advisers included a mercenary from = UNITA, the CIA-backed Angola army. Also jumping on board was the = Layton family, whose patriarch, UC Berkeley chemist Dr. Laurence = Laird Layton, had worked on the Manhattan Project and was chief of = the Army's Chemical Warfare Division in the early 50's. (Mrs. = Layton was the daughter of Hugo Phillips, a German = banker/stockbroker who became rich representing Siemans & Halske and = I.G. Farben, two notorious Nazi Holocaust profiteers.) Despite his rather right-wing history, Jones suddenly declared = himself a liberal and a socialist, and a reincarnation of Jesus = Christ and V.I. Lenin. At this point, suspicions were developing of = his church, which was backed by jack-booted armed thugs who dressed = in black uniforms. Using blackmail, extortions, and any other way = possible to swindle money from those in his clutches, Jones took all = he could from his followers, much of it in the form of welfare and = social security checks. The local press reported about "seven = mysterious deaths" of those who attempted to leave the "church" due = to conflict with Jones. Accusations of kidnapping, beatings, and = sexual abuse began to be whispered. To escape controversy, Jones moved to San Francisco, and became an = important fund-raiser for the political establishment there. Soon, = he was schmoozing with the liberal and radical elite, meeting with = (among others) Rosalynn Carter and Angela Davis. Jones was rewarded with being put in charge of the city Housing = Commission, and key followers were awarded jobs in the Welfare = Department. The bulk of their membership came from the unemployed = and dispossessed people found here. The cult preyed on the poor and = helpless, going out of the way to enlist women, children, and = minorities. They recruited many of their members directly from S.F. = mental hospitals. The move did little to change the controversy = surrounding his "church", and a 1977 expose was called an attack by = Jones. He then moved his Utopia to Guyana, aided once again by the = U.S. Embassy. KOUNTDOWN TO NOWHERE After receiving complaints lodges by relatives of cult members, = Congressman Leo Ryan visited Jonestown of November 18, 1978 to = investigate human rights abuse. Congressman Ryan was a noted CIA = critic, and had authored the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, which would have = required CIA disclosure in advance to the congressional committees = on all covert operations. Ryan had been given no answers or help = from the State department despite the numerous inquiries. He = arrived with U.S. Embassy official Richard Dwyer, as well as some = journalists, including Tim Reiterman (who had covered the Patty = Hearst story for the San Francisco Examiner.) It is likely Ryan = already suspected what was going on. And then all hell broke loose. At the airstrip, Leo Ryan soon became the first congressman to die = in the line of duty, along with four other reporters. (The Hughes- Ryan Amendment was killed in congress soon afterwards.) The = assassins were described by witnesses as "glassy eyed", = "mechanically-walking zombies", and "devoid of any emotion." Others = were shot, including Dwyer and Reiterman. Soon after that, the mass = slaughter began. A plausible explanation for the events that unfolded is that Jim = Jones (or someone else) ordered the murders when Ryan's unexpected = visit threatened to expose what was happening. In the chaos that = followed, a mass extermination was carried out. Just who were the zombie assassins? Well, besides the 913 dead, = there were 167 survivors who returned from the camp. All news = reports concede there were at least 1100 individuals at the camp = (and most place it at 1200.) Who are these 20 or more people = unaccounted for? The survivors report that there was a special all-white group that = were armed, well-treated and free to exit the compound. These = guards were never accounted for by any news reports. Perhaps it is = these same guards (assuming the total population was 1200) a = congressional aide was referring to in a AP quote which stated, = "There are 120 white, brainwashed assassins out from Jonestown = awaiting the trigger word to pick up their hit." Of course, they may have had a little help. Over 300 American Green = Berets - trained for CIA covert assassinations - were in the area at = the time. So were nearly 600 British Black Watch commandos, who = were there on a "training exercise." Suddenly the death toll seems = relatively low. DAN WHITE'S LITTLE GAME OF SOLITAIRE AND OTHER CURIOUS DEATHS But these weren't the last strange deaths involved with Jonestown. = Nine days later, San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor = Harvey Milk were slain by Dan White, who was either a "disgruntled = police agent" or "angry about gays." These explanations were = supplied to explain his utterly irrational behavior during the = killings, as, sure enough, he was described as being in a bizarre = zombie state. During the trial, his lawyers came up with the = inventive but deservedly mocked "Twinkie defense", in which they = claimed he went insane by a sugar high caused by eating too many = sweets. Implausible, but easier to report in the news than stating = he was a brainwashed assassin. Moscone and Milk had extensive = financial backing from Jones during his stay by the Bay, and soon = they both were going to be investigated in connection to missing = funds from the People's Temple. That is, until a lone gunman took = care of them. Michael Prokes, a Jones aide, held a press conference and stated the = CIA and FBI were withholding an audiotape of the massacre. He also = stated that he was an FBI informant. Right after that, he went to = the restroom... and never left. His death was proclaimed a = "suicide". In Georgetown, several Temple members were killed after the = massacre. The man charged with the murders, Charles Beikman, was an = early follower of Jones and had become an "adopted son" of his. = Beikman was a Green Beret. Jeanne and Al Mills, who were writing a book on Jonestown, were = bound and shot to death at their home. In Detroit another survivor = was killed near his home, and another was involved in a mass murder = of school children in Los Angeles. Ironically, the dead may not have included Jim Jones himself, as was = claimed. The body alleged to be his didn't show his tattoos in the = photographs. Fingerprints had to be checked twice, and his dental = records were never looked at. He was known to use doubles. THE CIA AT GUYANA AND THE TWO BILLION DOLLAR BLACK HOLE As the massacre unfolded, Jones is tape recorded as yelling, "Get = Dwyer out of here!" Jim Dwyer was later found at the airstrip, = methodically washing his hands. In 1968, Dwyer was listed in the publication entitled, "Who's Who in = the CIA". When asked if the allegation was true, he replied, "No = comment." Of course, Dwyer isn't the only link to CIA in Guyana. Besides = those previously mentioned, John Burke, the U.S. ambassador, and = Richard McCoy, another official, were both heavily involved with the = intelligence community. The U.S. Embassy in Georgetown also housed = the Georgetown CIA station. At the time, Guyana had a socialist = government, and thus was a likely target for covert operations. Dan = Webber, sent to Guyana after the massacre, was CIA as well. The "official" attorney for the survivors, Joseph Blatchford, was = involved in a scandal involving CIA infiltration of the Peace Corps. Then there is the missing money that just "disappeared" after the = mass death. Conservative estimates place the amount at $26 million. = Others place it at $2 billion. Judging the history of bank loot = understatements, the second figure is likely closer to the truth. = At the time, a major international money laundering operation was = headquartered in Italy involving the Vatican and a mysterious = fascist quasi-Masonic lodge known as the P-2. (The operation = probably led to the murder of Pope John Paul I, but that's another = conspiracy.) The P-2 had a major operation located in nearby = Panama, and had numerous CIA links themselves. All this was = disturbingly echoed in the S & L swindle of the eighties, which had = CIA and Mafia prints all over the place. Add in the FBI files on the Black Panthers and Weathermen found at = the site, an attempt to lure Mark Lane (JFK assassination critic and = James Earl Ray lawyer, among other things) and Donald Freed (Lane's = sometime JFK collaborator and recent Simpson case investigator who = has linked the Brentwood murders to Mafia in the L.A. underworld) to = Guyana (which succeeded in having Lane witness the airstrip murders = after Jones hired him as a lawyer) and a bizarre plot to kidnap = Grace Walden Stephens (witness to the Martin Luther King = assassination) and smuggle her to Jonestown, and you have the = makings of a full fledge spook operation. DID JIM JONES READ "CATCHER IN THE RYE"? Perhaps the strangest CIA connection of all to Jonestown was the = previously mentioned World Vision. As stated, the evangelical order = often fronts for the CIA. They performed espionage work for the CIA = in Southeast Asia while Operation Phoenix (the murderous project = that left 40,000 people dead) was in full effect. In Honduras, they = were a presence at CIA Contra recruiting camps in the war against = the Sandinistas. In Lebanon, their camps were where the fascist = Phalange butchered Palestinians. In Cuba, their refugee camps = hosted numerous members of the anti-Castro terrorist group Alpha 66 = of Bay of Pigs fame. After the Guyana massacre, World Vision developed a scheme to = repopulate Jonestown with CIA-linked mercenaries from Laos. Laos, = of course, was where the CIA was running it's "secret war" during = Vietnam, which for the most part was a smokescreen for a widespread = opium trafficking operation. One particularly important World Vision official was John Hinckley, = Sr., an oil man, reputed CIA officer, and friend of George Bush. = You may have heard of his son. Less than four months before Hinckley Jr. became known as Jodie = Foster's biggest fan, another member of the World Vision order, Mark = Chapman, gunned down John Lennon in what may have been a practice = run for the bigger hit on President Reagan. A policeman who found = him was convinced he was a mind-kontrolled assassin. Chapman was = clutching the novel "Catcher in the Rye" - which was also owned by = Hinckley Jr. (The book was written by J.D. Salinger, who worked in = military intelligence with Henry Kissinger in W.W.II.) Before going = to trial, Chapman plead guilty after a voice in his head (he = attributed it to God) commanded him to do so. Considering the history of World Vision and what went on previously = in Guyana, it is likely that the real purpose behind repopulating = Jonestown was to create another breeding ground for brainwashed = zombies like Chapman and Hinckley. Even after the massacre, nearby = there was a place called Hilltown, a compound of 8,000 blacks that = followed kult leader Rabbi David Hill, who held his flock with an = iron fist. Hill had so much power behind him that he was referred = to as the "vice prime minister" of Guyana. There was also another = place in Guyana called "Johnstown", as well as similar operations in = the Phillipines and Chile. It appears that Jonestown (and World = Vision's later attempt) is hardly the exception to the rule of using = obscure locations in Third World nations as laboratories for kult = operations. KRAZY KULT OR KONCENTRATION KAMP? The site in Guyana was originally a Union Carbide mine, and was = loaded with an abundance of precious natural resources. It is very = likely that the site was chosen to exploit these resources with = cheap labor - and cheap labor was plentiful. Members of Jim Jones' = "church" were bound and gagged immediately after landing in Guyana = and taken to the compound. They were pumped with drugs, and = Jonestown had enough to drug 200,000 people for over a year. Among = the drugs found: Quaaludes, Valium, morphine, Demerol, Thorazine (a = dangerous tranquilizer), sodium pentathol (a truth serum), chloral = hydrate (a hypnotic), and thallium (which confuses thinking), and, = of course, cyanide. They had both cramped living quarter and meager = rations of often spoiled food. They were then forced to work slave = labor for 16-18 hours a day and required to stay up day and night = listening to Jim Jones lecture. Among the charming punishments the = flock endured were forced druggings, sensory isolation in an = underground box, physical torture, public sexual rape and = humiliation, not to mention your average ordinary beatings and = verbal abuse. If all this leaves a strange feeling of deja vu, the reason may be = because all these drugs and treatments were used in the CIA's = notorious MK-ULTRA program, which was implemented to test and = implement brainwashing and mind control techniques, supposedly to = protect us from some nefarious "communist threat". A 1974 = government report admitted that certain "target populations" were = used, namely blacks, women, prisoners, the elderly, children, and = inmates of psychiatric wards. The Orwellian-named Center for the = Study and Reduction of Violence, using the research of = Strangelovian-doctors Jose Delgado and Louis "Jolly" West, was = attempting to draw guinea pigs from the "target populations" to test = drugs, implants, and psycho surgery techniques on at an isolated = military missile base in California. The dead at Jonestown were 90% = women, 80% blacks, and included 276 children. Which leads us back to Auschwitz and the ultimate deja vu. = Auschwitz, after all, was not just a death camp: it also was a slave = labor camp for chemical monolith I.G. Farben. There, the outcasts = and refuse of society that no one cared about were treated to = similar abuses while a select few profited from the misery. The = brains behind the Final Solution became much of the brains behind = MK-ULTRA. The MK is often said to stand for "Mind Kontrol" - = representing the Germanic origins of the project. Going the full = ten yards, however, it is possible that MK merely stands for "Mein = Kampf". SOME OPINIONS THE HISTORY BOOKS FORGET TO INCLUDE Much of this was known by Congressman Ryan, who probably suspected = that Jonestown was a front for something even more sinister. In = 1980, Ryan aide Joseph Holsinger received a paper, entitled "The = Penal Colony", which explained that CIA MK-ULTRA operations did not = terminate in 1973, as officially proclaimed, but were instead = continued in public hospitals, prisons, and religious kults which = were used as fronts. Holsinger later stated at a S.F. psychologist = forum on Jonestown that he believed the CIA worked with Jones to = perform medical and mind kontrol experiments at People's Temple. If = Congressman Ryan had not been killed - a big if - much of this = information would have undoubtedly been uncovered, and many = skeletons in the CIA closet would have been uncovered with a domino = effect. Michael Meiers, author of "Was Jonestown a CIA Medical Experiment?", = had this to say: "The Jonestown experiment was conceived by Dr. = Layton, staffed by Dr. Layton and financed by Dr. Layton. It was as = much his project as it was Jim Jones's." Layton, remember, was head = of the Army's Chemical Warfare Division. Former Temple member Joyce Shaw said it best, when wondering out = loud if Jonestown was "some kind of horrible government experiment, = or some sort of sick, racist thing... a plan like that of the = Germans to exterminate blacks." In October of 1981, Jonestown survivors filed a $63 million lawsuit = against Jonestown era Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and CIA = director Stansfield Turner. The suit stated that the State = Department and CIA conspired to "enhance the economic and political = powers of James Warren Jones," conducting "mind control and drug = experimentation" there. The suit was dismissed four months later = for "failure to prosecute timely," and all requests for appeal were = denied. (Turner would become a director of Monsanto, now best known = for providing the world with the benignly named poison and brain- damaging substance "NutraSweet".) All this, of course, is forgotten in "official" or "mainstream" = accounts of the event. Instead, the "acceptable" version of = describing Jonestown blames the victims, echoing the ignorant grunt = uttered by Pete Hamill, who dismissed the dead as "all the loose = change of the sixties." CONCLUSION Hanging over Jonestown was a mocking sign that proclaimed, "THOSE = WHO DO NOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT." One of = the most elegant slogans of Holocaust survivors is "Never forget." Jonestown makes it clear that, no matter how well meaning, all these = slogans are but words. Never forget? We obviously already have. = That Jonestown could unfold before our eyes without the realization = of precisely what was going on says volumes. Certainly the blame = falls partly at the feet of a powerful military-industrial complex = that feels no shame for its deeds, and certainly partly at a = Korporate Media that has become the witting mouthpiece (and = collaborator) for this same cabal. But ultimately, the blame falls = at the feet of the people, their brains dulled from all those Brady = Bunch episodes and Bay City Rollers albums they consumed during the = glorious seventies. By the time the Guyana massacre rolled around, = the masses were too ignorant and apathetic to neither know nor care = about the truth. Instead, they swallowed the official version and = waited obediently for their next piece of mindless glop. What's worse, if one was to try to inform people of the truth, = instead of outrage at those behind the evil deeds, the attacks would = be leveled at the informant for uttering such disturbing facts. See = Gary Webb (of CIA-crack fame) and his treatment from his editors and = his fellow "journalists" for proof. Or try bringing up this story = in polite company and see the kind of response you get. Could the Holocaust happen again? It already has, and will continue = to happen. One wonders if it ever really ended. BIBLIOGRAPHY "The Black Hole of Guyana," John Judge =46rom "Secret and Suppressed," edited by Jim Keith Most of the infomation in this report is taken directly from Mr. = Judge's work. It is highly recommended to all interested in = learning more to read this vital source. "Operation Mind Control," Walter Bowart "Who Killed John Lennon?," Fenton Bresler "Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A.," Alex Constantine Donald Freed, Interview by Author "Raven: The Untold Story of the Reverend Jim Jones and His People," = John Jacobs and Tim Reiterman "Guyana Massacre: The Eyewitness Accounts," Charles Krause "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control," = John Marks "Was Jonestown a CIA Medical Experiment?," Michael Meiers "The Big Book of Conspiracies," Doug Moench "A Sympathetic History of Jonestown," Rebecca Moore "Conspiracies, Coverups, and Crimes," Jonathan Vankin "60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time," Jonathan Vankin & John = Whalen "The CIA's Greatest Hits," Mark Zepezauer --PART.BOUNDARY.0.11988.emout14.mail.aol.com.871701141-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The Cold War DC Mall Memorial Date: 16 Aug 1997 09:51:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-to: sacredbull@FoxValley.NET ================================================================== SacredBull Mailing List: Because ridicule is a weapon. ================================================================== THE WAR WITHOUT A MEMORIAL A Plea from the SacredBull Society for Social Justice It was America's longest war, and most expensive. It was also the greatest victory America ever won. Our heroic efforts not only vanquished the foe, but discredited his oppressive political system everywhere around the globe. We're speaking of the Cold War. Yes, that terrible, but ultimately glorious, war against Global Communism. Yet shockingly, in Washington, DC, that city of memorials, there is no shrine to mark this, our greatest of all victories. There is no statue, no wall, no column, no obelisk, no fountain...not even a small brass plaque to mark the most thorough defeat of evil in the history of our nation. Ladies and gentlemen, we urge you to help the SacredBull Society for Social Justice remedy that shameful lack. This nation *needs* a memorial to Our Great Victory Over Tyranny. And we are asking you to write to your congressperson *today* to see that we get one. Congress has only to authorize funds to build the memorial. The SacredBull Society for Social Justice (SSSJ) has already, at its own expense, hired an architect and designed the monument. With your help, Mr., Mrs. and Ms. America, we can dedicate this Great Work by April 15, 2000! Here's our exciting vision: The monument will consist of a colossal, granite hand, 150 feet high, with one finger raised to the heavens. Upon its wrist will be inscribed these simple words: WE CELEBRATE THE TRIUMPH OF FREEDOM OVER TYRANNY This is the evil America defeated in the Cold War, 1945 to 1989 THE TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO 1. Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Combination of education with industrial production. FREEDOM FOREVER Isn't that inspiring, ladies and gentlemen -- to see in bold letters the evil our goodness and love of freedom enabled us to defeat? But that's not all. SSSJ has already begun planning a gala dedication ceremony. It will one of the most impressive events Washington has ever seen. Picture it, my friends! On that sunny April day in 2000, an army of children from America's inner-city public schools will march down the Mall, carrying their hand-lettered banners. Behind them will march thousands of America's finest. The federal government will be represented by agents of the IRS, FBI, DEA, ATF, the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Transportation, EPA, HUD, FEMA, OSHA, the FHA, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Labor Department, the Bureau of Land Management and many other fine organizations that help maintain the American Way of Life. Private enterprise will be represented by the presidents of America's major corporations. Those whose companies receive the largest federal benefits will march hand-in-hand with those whose companies have made the largest contributions to the reigning party. The fine, salt-of-the-earth people of America's towns will be represented by members of their local zoning and planning authorities, as well as their beloved property tax assessors. Agriculture will be represented by an army of farmers driving tractors. (They will be paid not to grow crops that spring, in order that they may attend the festivities. Those who have lost their family farms to inheritance taxes will be allowed into the parade by special permit.) The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board will cut a giant red ribbon leading into the monument area, where the President of the United States will give a stirring speech about the virtues of freedom. Though large, the ceremony's cost will be held to a minimum. Paid volunteers from Americorps will join U.S. Army troops in providing event security. Post-celebration site cleanup will be provided by public high school students performing the compulsory volunteer duties required by their schools. We are also urging Congress to make funds available from the billions of dollars in assets seized each year in civil forfeiture actions to help pay for this celebration of freedom and justice. It's a truly exciting vision, ladies and gentlemen. And this stunning monument to freedom can be built for a mere $500,000,000 dollars. That's nothing! Just a fraction of what goes each year into farm subsidies, public education or support to corporate America. So help give this country a monument to celebrate its greatest achievement -- a monument you, and millions of future Americans, can be proud of - a monument to which you can point and tell your grandchildren, "This, my dear little child, is what your government did to you." ----- (c) 1997 Claire Wolfe and Todd Howe. Permission to reprint freely granted, as long as the article is reprinted in full and is accompanied by this copyright statement. ================================================================== To Subscribe: Send mail to majordomo@foxvalley.net with "subscribe sacredbull" as the message and you are OURS! Hahahahaha. We don't have unsubscribe instructions. ================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: AP: No Charges in Ruby Ridge Case (fwd) Date: 16 Aug 1997 08:35:50 -0700 Paul, [...] I'd say the message is pretty much loud and clear: Federal officials can do whatever they want-- [...] I wonder, just how is it that the soldiers of the Third Reich were held for crimes infamous, under the pretense of 'just following orders', and yet Lon Horiuchi gets to walk free. Maybe Mr. H could use a good bit of backwoods justice. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: AP: No Charges in Ruby Ridge Case (fwd) Date: 16 Aug 1997 08:35:50 -0700 Paul, [...] I'd say the message is pretty much loud and clear: Federal officials can do whatever they want-- [...] I wonder, just how is it that the soldiers of the Third Reich were held for crimes infamous, under the pretense of 'just following orders', and yet Lon Horiuchi gets to walk free. Maybe Mr. H could use a good bit of backwoods justice. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: The Lekan Incident (fwd) Date: 06 Aug 1997 23:46:06 PST On Aug 16, Freedom Fighter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Found at: http://www.scimitar.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/lekan.html The Lekan Incident John Lekan was an eccentric. Eccentrics can easily get on the wrong side of government officials. Lekan, 54, lived with his wife Beverly, 49, and their son John Jr., 9, in Brunswick, Ohio. Lekan, a veteran, was disabled; his wife suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. A Medina County Human Services Department health aide apparently did not care for Lekan's habit of carrying a loaded firearm at home for self-defense. The health aide told Mrs. Lekan that the police would be accompanying her on her next visit. This is the first point at which government officials crossed the line of individual rights. Being eccentric is not a crime. Carrying a firearm at home is not a crime and in fact is protected by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Neither eccentricity nor gun ownership is enough to warrant police action. At 3 p.m. Friday, March 31, 1995, two Brunswick police officers arrived at the Lekan home. Officer Sam Puzella knocked on the door. When Lekan refused to let them in, Puzella kicked in the door. This is the second point at which government officials violated Lekan's rights. At this point, there was no suspicion that anyone was in immediate danger, nor was there a search or arrest warrant enabling the officers to enter the property. When the door was kicked in, Lekan's eccentricity turned violent. Lekan shot Puzella in the chest. The police retreated. Puzella was airlifted to a hospital. At 8:30 p.m., police attempted to rush the Lekan home. Lekan shot two more police. At this point the police began a siege of Lekan's home. The neighborhood was evacuated; gas, electric, telephone, water service and street lights were shut off; cameras were installed to see into the interior of the home; four SWAT teams, 300 law enforcement personnel, 200 fire fighters and two Armored Personnel Carriers (APC's) converged at the site. Police began pumping water at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute into Lekan's basement to try to flood him out. At 11 a.m. Saturday, April 1, APC's broke through the garage door, east wall and backyard patio doors of the Lekan home, inserting tear gas. Reports indicate that at this point Lekan and his son died of single gunshot wounds to the head, ruled a murder-suicide by Medina County coroner Dr. Neil Grabenstetter. At 10:15 a.m. Sunday, April 2, police fired more tear gas through broken windows, entered the house through a window, found Mrs. Lekan and brought her out the house. SWAT team members entered the Lekan home, and four hours later emerged with the bodies of Lekan and his son. The bodies were found in the bathroom with a gas mask, two acetylene oxygen tanks, a 10-gauge shotgun, a .27 caliber rifle and ammunition for both weapons. The above information was taken from a message posted by E Pluribus Unum ( [EMAIL] 74634.33@compuserve.com), a Patriot group in central Ohio. E Pluribus Unum obtained their information from "(1) eyewitness accounts, (2) media accounts, (3) law enforcement personnel, (4) testimony of public officials at the Brunswick Safety Meeting of April 5, 1995 (5) Pictures we took of the remains of Mr. Lekan's home (6) Transmissions on police scanners." Topics - Places - Times - Names - About - [REVOLUTION] Comments? Humor - Quotes - Books - Online -- Donald L. Cline, a.k.a. Freedom Fighter ===================================================== If the Federal Government will not recognize, after the year 2005, any personal identification not bear- ing a digitized fingerprint and/or other digitized information of a private nature, perhaps the people of America, who are the rightful and lawful masters of government, should stop recognizing the Federal Government. -- Donald L. Cline, 7/23/97 ===================================================== If individuals have no right to keep and bear arms, then society cannot defend the right of free speech or free press or any other right against the mere whim of any superior force. (Media, take note.) -- Donald L. Cline, 7/27/97 ===================================================== I'll be your huckleberry. -- Doc Holliday, 1851-1887 ===================================================== All private e-mail should be encrypted. If we want the right to privacy, we have to exercise it. -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzFy+ZUAAAEEALPVoVAAP6owI7YpVzbfZC110ajm/35jUYOPft0ClvCtaQCX 9DN0SqNXNePTdy+UScAnW7iQo6lRfVgf1d6qAitMKROyakLw23kEQg97lBRjLuTk KohayiBEHfZNBfHOZEup60amKdWHI56MdSZ85+/nmwp/UsGVE9LtHY/LU4GRAAUR tCZGcmVlZG9tIEZpZ2h0ZXIgPGZyZG1mdHJAcHJpbWVuZXQuY29tPrQmRG9uYWxk IEwuIENsaW5lIDxmcmRtZnRyQHByaW1lbmV0LmNvbT60CURvbiBDbGluZQ== =1Yg5 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Subject: Goals 2000? O.B.E.? Careers Act? (fwd) Date: 18 Aug 1997 07:49:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is the parent address: http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ Found this at this address: http://ic.net/~celano/ip/goals2000.html What is Goals 2000? In a word, it is the federal government's method of taking full control=20 of the public school systems away from parents, local and state=20 government.=20 The weapon they are using to accomplish this is funding - either a state=20 cooperates and agrees to the Goals 2000 standards and edicts, or it=20 doesn't get the money.=20 What are the GOALS of Goals 2000? =95Goal 1 - School Readiness=20 =95Goal 2 - School Completion=20 =95Goal 3 - Student Achievement and Citizenship=20 =95Goal 4 - Teacher Education and Professional Development=20 =95Goal 5 - Mathematics and Science=20 =95Goal 6 - Adult Literacy and Lifelong learning=20 =95Goal 7 - Safe, Disciplined and Alcohol- and Drug-Free Schools=20 =95Goal 8 - Parental Participation=20 Sounds pretty noble, doesn't it? Take a closer look though. In order to=20 bring about these high ideals, the constitution must first be=20 circumvented. Here are the constitutional problems, as summarized by=20 Brannon Howse in "Reclaiming a Nation At Risk:"=20 1.H.R. 6 grants unconstitutional powers to the National Education=20 Standards and Improvement Council, established by Goals 2000. The 20=20 member board consists mostly of appointees of the President who must be=20 members of the NEA.=20 2.Goals 2000 and ESEA violates the tenth amendment by taking the right=20 of the people in each state to control their own educational system,=20 according to the Bill of Rights, and gives it to the federal government.=20 3.H.R. 6 strives to "develop with parents for all children a=20 school-parent compact that outlines how parents, the school and students=20 will share responsibility for improved student achievement and the means=20 by which the school and parents will build and develop a partnership."=20 In other words, the federal government becomes an "equal partner" in the=20 raising of your children.=20 4.ESEA will allow for school-based clinics. As explained by Geoffrey=20 Botkin, they will be "given money and incredible powers, including=20 latitude to administer super-secret exams, vaccines, contraceptives,=20 abortion counseling and unlicensed psychological therapies to some=20 children without parental consent."=20 5.Goals 2000 and ESEA will help fund a controversial and mandatory=20 national program known as "Parents as Teachers." This program should=20 actually be called "Teachers as Parents," because it allows for social=20 workers to come into your home to collect personal data on your children=20 and the entire family. The social worker's job is to teach parents to be=20 parents, and it is simplified by the use of 12 computer codes which will=20 determine whether your family is "at risk." Being considered "at risk"=20 includes having a parent who is ill, overweight, tired, depressed.=20 Moving to a new home, giving birth to the child's sibling, or a death in=20 the family, will also place you "at risk." There is no computer code to=20 label a family "normal!"=20 6.ESEA will aid in establishing a sort of high-tech report card or=20 diploma called "The Certificate of Initial Mastery." Without this=20 certificate, it will become increasingly difficult to be accepted into=20 college, get employment, receive health care, obtain a drivers license,=20 travel and even vote.=20 7.Goals 2000 and ESEA will mandate the Outcome-Based Education on every=20 state in the union, by mandating opportunity to learn standards. These=20 "standards" are the belief that there is no right or wrong.=20 8.H.R. 6 calls for the development of "educational technology" that will=20 involve the Department of Labor in assessing all students in their=20 efforts to attain the OBE outcomes. In 1989, a supercomputer went online=20 to track every child. Many OBE tests measure and store students'=20 responses to political and religious questions.=20 9.ESEA and Goals 2000 are unconstitutional because they discourage the=20 teaching of the basics. The original preamble of ESEA said, "The=20 disproven theory that children must first learn basic skills before=20 engaging in more complex tasks continues to dominate strategies for=20 classroom instruction, resulting in emphasis on repetitive drill and=20 practice at the expense of content rich instruction, accelerated=20 curricula, and effective teaching to high standards."=20 10.H.R. 6 will give the Secretary of Education unconstitutional powers.=20 Here's why: A.The secretary has the power under ESEA to "withhold funds"=20 from a state until the state submits an educational plan that meets the=20 approval of the U.S. Secretary of Education. B.If, after two years, "a=20 state does not have challenging content and performance standards," the=20 Secretary of Education can force onto this state the standards, or=20 outcomes, of another state. C.If a local school district does not comply=20 with this federal legislation, the state can be forced by the federal=20 government to fire school board members and even the district=20 superintendent in order to gain compliance to H.R. 6 and Goals 2000 so=20 the state and district can receive federal dollars. D.Section 9401 in=20 H.R. 6 is entitled, "Waivers of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements."=20 This section says, "The Secretary may waive any requirement of this Act=20 or of the General Education Provisions Act, or of the regulations issued=20 under such Acts, for a state educational agency, Indian tribe, or other=20 agency, organization, or institution that receives funds under a program=20 authorized by this Act from the Department and that requests such a=20 waiver, if the Secretary determines that such requirements impede the=20 ability of the State educational agency or other recipient to achieve=20 more effectively the purpose of this Act." Good-bye to home and private=20 schools!=20 11.The wording of H.R. 6 is so vague that it is open to massive=20 interpretation. Geoffrey Botkin says, "H.R. 6 is a masterpiece of=20 flexible language and creative new terminology that can mean almost=20 anythimassive interpretation. Geoffrey Botkin Our government maintains its power over us by hiding what it is doing=20 until it is done. We need to educate ourselves, so that we may educate=20 others. Through educating others, we can return our government of the=20 people to the people.=20 Here are some links to follow up on:=20 =95Goals 2000: Increasing Student Achievement Through State and Local Initi= atives=20 =95SUMMARY - GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT=20 =95GOALS 2000 FORCED GENITAL EXAMS=20 =95GOALS 2000: THE CASE FOR REPEAL =95Frequently Asked Questions about Goals 2000: Educate America Act=20 =95DUMB AND DUMBER, GOALS 2000 & O.B.E.=20 =95Misconceptions About the GOALS 2000: Educate America Act=20 =95The GOALS 2000 Satellite Town Meeting=20 =95CAN GOALS 2000 BE FIXED?=20 =95OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS: SELECTED QUOTATIONS ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GOAL= S 2000=20 =95LEVEN YEAR OLD 6TH GRADERS VIOLATED BY GOALS 2000--LITERALLY!=20 =95The Tools That Will Rebuild Education=20 =95Goals 2000 Usurps Parental Role =95=95=95=95 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Found this at this address: http://ic.net/~celano/ip/obe.html Outcome Based Education According to Brannon Howse, in his book "Reclaiming a Nation at Risk,"=20 Outcome Based Education's foundation is supported by two predominate=20 tenets:=20 =95The belief that all students can learn and learn well.=20 =95The idea that equality should mean equality of outcomes rather than=20 equality of opportunity.=20 Standards are simply lowered until all students, regardless of intellect=20 or ability, are able to meet those standards.=20 OBE has had many names in its history. To quote Dr. Carl Rogers, "Change=20 the name of [the reform policy] as fast as necessary to stay ahead of=20 the critics."=20 Here are some of the names that have been used so far:=20 =95Mastery Learning=20 =95Results Oriented=20 =95Total Quality Management=20 =95Quality Schools=20 =95Essential Schools=20 =95Transformation Education=20 =95Reformed Education=20 =95Restructured Education=20 =95Competency Based Education=20 =95Break the Mold 21st Century Schools=20 =95Mission 2000=20 =95Vision 2000=20 =95Exit Based Teaching=20 =95High Standards=20 =95Skills 2000=20 =95Performance Based Learning=20 =95High Level Learning=20 =95Mastery Teaching=20 =95Formative Testing=20 =95Corrective Teaching=20 =95Extensions Learning=20 =95Summative Evaluations=20 =95Credentialing Curriculum=20 =95Advancement Teaching=20 =95Results-Based Curriculum=20 In Outcome Based Education, there are no correct answers. William=20 Glasser, one of OBE's promoters, wrote in his book "Schools Without=20 Failure:" We have to let students know there are no right answers, and=20 we have to let them see that there are many alternatives to certainty=20 and right answers.=20 I guess this explains why OBE has had so many names! There are no=20 absolutes, and thus no standards. Who are we to judge the actions of=20 anybody else, let alone our would-be masters?=20 Benjamine Bloom, in his book, "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives," says=20 the following about what the "Outcomes" should be:=20 The curriculum may be thought of as a plan for changing students'=20 benavior and as the actual set of learning experiences in which=20 students, teachers, and materials interact to produce the change in=20 students."=20 This is nothing short of mind control. The goal is to destroy every=20 authority figure that a child has, only to replace them with allegiance=20 to the consensus of the state. Here is more from Bloom:=20 The careful observer of the classroom can see that the wise teacher as=20 well as the psychological theorist use cognitive behavior and the=20 achievement of cognitive goals to attain affective goals... [A] large=20 part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to attain=20 affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs.=20 Rather than being encouraged to meet high standards and reap the rewards=20 of individual excellence and achievment, OBE teaches Communist and=20 Socialist ideals. Work is done in groups, and grades are greap the=20 rewards of individual excellence and achievment, OBE teaches Communist=20 and Socialist ideals. Work is done in groups, and grades are granted to=20 groups. The kids who do no work get the same recognition and grade as=20 those who did most=20 Here are some links to follow up on:=20 =95IF THEY DON'T LIKE O.B.E. WE'LL CHANGE THE NAME=20 =95What is Outcome Based Education (OBE)=20 =95THE WHOLE LANGUAGE/OBE FRAUD=20 =95OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION (OBE):PATRIOT'S RESOURCE TO THE TRUTH=20 =95What's Wrong With Outcome-Based Education?=20 =95Outcome-Based Education=20 =95Education Worms even flee OBE=20 =95SOME LIMITATIONS OF OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION=20 =95Outcome-Based Education - Learning's Latest Lie =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Found this at this address: http://ic.net/~celano/ip/careers.html CAREERS Act =2E . . And the Council of Vocations sat on a high dias, and they had but= =20 two words to speak to each of the Students. They called the Students'=20 names, and when the Students stepped before them, one after another, the=20 Council said: "Carpenter" or "Doctor" or "Cook" or "Leader." Then each=20 Student raised their right arm and said: "The will of our brothers be=20 done."=20 =2E . . We wished to be a Scholar.=20 So we awaited our turn in the great hall and then we heard the Council=20 of Vocations call our name: "Equality 7-2521." We walked to the dias,=20 and our legs did not tremble, and we looked up at the Council. There=20 were five members of the Council, three of the male gender and two of=20 the female. Their hair was white and their faces were cracked as the=20 clay of a dry river bed. They were old. They seemed older than the=20 marble of the Temple of the World Council. They sat before us and they=20 did not move. And we saw no breath to stir the folds of their white=20 togas. But we knew that they were alive, for a finger of the hand of the=20 oldest rose, pointed to us, and fell down again. This was the only thing=20 which moved, for the lips of the oldest did not move as they said:=20 "Street Sweeper."=20 We felt the cords of our neck grow tight as our head rose higher to look=20 upon the faces of the Council, and we were happy. We knew we had been=20 guilty, but now we had a way to atone for it. We would accept our Life=20 Mandate, and we would work for our brothers, gladly and willingly, and=20 we would erase our sin against them, which they did not know, but we=20 knew. So we were happy, and proud of ourselves and of our victory over=20 ourselves. We raised our right arm and we spoke, and our voice was the=20 clearest, the steadiest voice in the hall that day, and we said:=20 "The will of our brothers be done."=20 And we looked straight into the eyes of the Council, but their eyes were=20 as cold blue glass buttons. from Ayn Rand's "Anthem," written in 1937.=20 Imagine your child or grandchild in the position of Equality 7-2521. In the preface to the National Center on Education and the Economy's=20 Human Resource Development Plan, Marc Tucker writes:=20 What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to=20 develop one's skills that literally extends from cradle to grave.=20 The philosophy behind the CAREERS Act and the Schools-To-Work=20 Opportunities Act are essentially identical. The intent is to create a=20 government managed workforce, where our children would be set on a=20 career path very early in their education. Who would decide on these=20 career paths? The government, of course.=20 This is just too much to expect anybody to swallow. Here's what the NCEE=20 themselves say about implementing such a plan:=20 Creating such a system means sweeping aside countless programs, building=20 new ones, changing deeply embeded institutional structures... Trying to=20 ram it down everyone's throat would engender overwhelming opposition...=20 This is not the usual scale experiment nor is it a demonstration=20 program... As soon as the first set of states is engaged, another set=20 would be invited to participate.=20 The NCEE also calls for the establishment of a fully computerized "labor=20 market system" that would follow every citizen from cradle to grave.=20 Part of this program is a system called WORKLINK, which assesses a=20 student's qualities, and would be shared with businesses.=20 The ultimate goal of all this is to establish a system where the=20 government begins evaluating children literally from birth, based not=20 only on their accomplishments, but on their families, their school=20 tests, evaluations, assessments, essays, physical and psychological=20 profiles, political views and anything else that they can accumulate in=20 their database. This information would then be used to set a child on a=20 "career path" which includes government "training" rather than=20 education. The government will issue a certificate, without which the=20 child will be unemployable.=20 To put it another way, the government, in one sweep, will become the=20 personnel office of our nation's businesses, along with the dictator of=20 how our children will spend their lives, and what they will be permitted=20 to accomplish.=20 Here are some links to follow up on:=20 =95When Students Become Guinea Pigs=20 =95Orwellian Education: The totalitarian design behind "School to Work"=20 =95Brannon Howse CAREERS ACT summary=20 =95Urgent Action Alert: The CAREERS Act=20 =95HR 2884/S1361 Legislative Fact Sheet=20 =95Legislative Summary: School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 =95=95=95= =95=95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: FIJA Information Source? Date: 18 Aug 1997 13:30:24 -0400 (EDT) I would be most appreciative if a fellow ROC contributor could steer me in the direction of FIJA information. I accidentally tossed my copy of the LSAS newsletter in which the "FIJA information" U.S. mailing address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address were listed. Regards, Chris Ferris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Why Republicans Suck Too (fwd) Date: 18 Aug 1997 12:41:01 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Topic: White Water Corruption Is A Cancer That Grows Conservative Current August 12, 1997 Paul Craig Roberts Corruption at the top of government, real or perceived, soon spreads throughout the government. Ecuadorian politician Alberto Dahik put it succinctly: "When the perception is that corruption begins at the top, everything falls into decay. If the minister himself steals, the undersecretaries will commit assaults and the departmental directors will engage in theft, extortion, robbery and murder." North America and South America were long distinguished by the prevalence of political corruption in the Southern Hemisphere. But reforms in South America and in the Clinton administration in North America are redressing the imbalance. A day doesn't pass without new improprieties coming to light. Attorney General Janet Reno has pulled FBI agents off the investigation of the election fraud that might be the margin in Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu's Senate victory, prompting Senate Rules Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) to observe that "the withdrawal of FBI agents, when the investigation is not complete, does not reflect well on the Justice Department or the bureau." Reno has earned the nickname "Stonewall" for refusing to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the massive illegal donations by foreign nationals acting, perhaps, for the Chinese government in behalf of the Clinton and Democratic campaigns. The latest charges against Reno are from Judicial Watch General Counsel Larry Klayman, who believes memos show that she is implicated in the campaign finance scandal. According to Klayman, "The DNC memo shows Reno and other Cabinet officials were being asked to participate in what has been shown to be illegal fundraising activities. It is no wonder the attorney general has not proceeded aggressively to investigate her fellow Cabinet members and her administration, since she is clearly part of the scandal." Many members of Congress believe that the Justice Department is obstructing their attempts to investigate what appears to be the sale of U.S. policy to foreign nationals for money. All of this is enough to justify investigating Reno herself. And there is even more. The Washington Times reported on Aug. 7 that Justice Department racketeering charges against labor union boss Arthur A. Coia and his union were dropped when the Democratic National Committee told the White House that he was one of "our top 10 supporters." Documents show that Coia hobnobbed with the Clintons on a grand scale even after the Justice Department had sent a memo to the White House describing him as a "mob puppet." These are only some of the sins of Reno, who is not yet under investigation. Other Cabinet figures have not been so fortunate. Agricultural Secretary Mike Espy was recently informed that he is a target of a criminal grand jury probe and could face indictments. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown escaped by dying in a plane crash. Justice Department honcho Webster Hubbel is in federal prison. Independent counsels are investigating perjury and obstruction of justice by the First Couple themselves. The improprieties, or appearances thereof, in the Clinton administration are too vast to be chronicled in one column. Coming as it does on top of the fierce media assault on the Reagan administration and before that on President Richard Nixon, the combined long-term effect has been to demoralize Americans about their government and to foster corruption in the federal bureaucracy and state and local government. The loosening of standards of political ethics --- the hallmark of the Clinton administration --- is spreading throughout political life. It is accelerated by the buyouts and early retirement of large numbers of senior civil-service officials, steeped in the ethic of professional public service, to create room for "underrepresented minorities," who often see their new jobs as a quota right. A recent public poll by the Scripps Howard News Service found that Americans' experience with the federal government has left them so cynical and disillusioned that many are convinced that the federal government is guilty of grisly crimes. Forty percent of Americans believe that the FBI deliberately killed 81 Branch Davidians in the Waco, Texas, massacre four years ago. More than one-third suspect the U.S. Navy was responsible for last year's crash of TWA flight 800, and 51 percent believe it likely that federal authorities were responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Conspiracy theories are everywhere. The most recent stems from the Republicans' pusillanimous approach to the Clinton scandals. Clinton is getting away with everything, the reasoning goes, because the Republicans are in on it, too. The Romans, one of history's most remarkable peoples, found that once political morality broke down, it could not be repaired. Once people lost respect for the offices of government, rulers could inspire only scorn and fear. By cooperating with a corrupt administration, Republicans have tainted themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fwd: (Fwd) Boycott Japan!] (fwd) Date: 08 Aug 1997 11:00:32 PST On Aug 18, Larry Ball wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here is a good idea. You may wish to change the letter to better reflect your view, but I suggest that basically it is a good idea. Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com "Rev. Paul Armes" , lball@inetnebr.com While he's a British citizen, currently living in Britain, Mr. Kendrick is also a member of the US NRA and a dedicated fighter for the right to keep and bear arms. Please at least give some consideration to participating in this effort to whatever extent possible. -- Chris ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Here is an action kit for boycotting Japan. I urge you all to redistribute this message as widely as possible. 1. Find the address of your local embassy or consulate at: http://www2.nttca.com:8010/infomofa/embassy/index.html 2. Write to the local ambassador or consulate-general: [please don't copy this word-for-word] His Excellency the Ambassador Embassy of the Imperial State of Japan 101-104 Piccadilly London W1V 9FN Your Excellency Although I have long been a consumer of Japanese products, it is with some regret that today I have made the decision not to patronise Japanese businesses anymore. Let me tell you why: Since 1995, the Japanese Government has been funding and sponsoring at the United Nations a project called the "International Study of Firearms Regulation". The Japanese Government has so far supplied in excess of a quarter of a million dollars to fund this study, and has promised a similar amount to help write and publicise a UN "Universal Declaration of Principles on Firearms Regulation". The Japanese Government has in short been doing everything possible to enhance firearms regulation world-wide via the United Nations. As someone who believes in democracy and also the rights of responsible people to own and use firearms, I find it reprehensible that the Japanese Government is acting in this manner. Even though I disagree with the views of the Japanese Government, I would not object so strongly if the Government of Japan were to approach the other Governments of the world and ask them to tighten their firearms regulations. In that case, the Governments of those countries would present their proposals to their legislatures, and the people of those countries would be able to participate in the adoption of any proposals in a democratic manner. However, this is not what the Government of Japan has done. They are attempting in an underhanded and dishonourable fashion to force the Governments of the world to adopt severe firearm regulations by pushing a resolution to that effect through the United Nations General Assembly. Doubtless, this is because the individual citizen of any country finds it difficult to find representation at the United Nations. Therefore, given that I cannot influence the UN or the Japanese Government, I am left with only one option, and that is to boycott Japanese businesses in protest. I will henceforth only purchase Japanese products that are firearm-related. I doubt I am the only gun owner in the world who feels this way, therefore I hope the Japanese Government changes its viewpoint before serious damage is done to Japanese export business. In closing, I would simply point out that the reason that the Japanese Government has had to raise sentences for firearm-related offences recently and the reason seizures of firearms have increased by 95% from 1990-1994 in Japan is because restrictive firearm laws do not work, and the sooner the Japanese Government realises that fact the sooner they can put their money to more productive uses. Yours faithfully 3. Send a copy of your letter with a cover letter to: Shinji Sato MP Minister of International Trade and Industry MITI Annex Building 1-3-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100 JAPAN 4. Go around your home and garage and find all the instruction manuals for all the Japanese widgets and vehicles you possess. Write to the addresses on the manuals and enclose a copy of your letter to the ambassador/consulate general, with a letter saying you aren't going to buy anything from them again. If you run a company, point out that your company will no longer buy Japanese-made products and will advise others to do likewise. Steve. -- Chris Meissen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among the sovereigns and among the branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the problems of the day." -- Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority Supreme Court decision on the Brady Law ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------3508EDE62A2CB426E035B324-- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: FIJA Information Source? Date: 18 Aug 1997 20:36:07 -0400 (EDT) At 01:30 PM 8/18/97 -0400, you wrote: >I would be most appreciative if a fellow ROC contributor could steer me >in the direction of FIJA information. I accidentally tossed my copy of the >LSAS newsletter in which the "FIJA information" U.S. mailing address, >telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address were listed. > >Regards, > >Chris Ferris > > > Chris, Try this address; http://www.fija.org/ This is their home page. Looking forward to your next satire. 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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Boycott Japan (fwd) Date: 08 Aug 1997 18:26:56 PST On Aug 18, Larry Ball wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here are the addresses of the Japanese Embassy and Consolates in the U.S. and Canada. I am going to send a fax to two consulates and the embassy. If you did not copy the original post concerning worldwide effort, please tell me and I will repost the original message. Embassy Addresses North America United States of America (U.S.A) Embassy of Japan 2520 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington D.C., 20008-2869, U.S.A. Tel: (1-202) 939-6700 Fax: (1-202) 328-2187 Agana Consulate-General of Japan Suite 604, Guam International Trade Center Building 590 South Marine Drive Tamuning Guam, 96911, U.S.A. Mailing Address: Consulate-General of Japan P.O. Box AG, Agana, Guam 96910, U.S.A. Tel: (671) 646-1290, 646-5220 Fax: (671) 649-2620 Saipan Consular Office of Japan 5th Floor, Horiguchi Bldg. Broadway St., Garapan Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950, U.S.A. Mailing Address: Consular Office of Japan P.O. Box 407 Main Post Office Saipan, MP 96950, U.S.A. Tel: (670) 234-7201, 234-7202 Fax: (670) 234-8764 Atlanta Consulate-General of Japan Suite 2000, 100 Colony Square Building 1175 Peachtree Street N.E. Atlanta, GA 30361, U.S.A. Tel: (1-404) 892-2700, 892-6670, 892-7845 Fax: (1-404) 881-6321 Anchorage Consulate-General of Japan 550 West 7th Avenue, Sutie 701 Anchorage, Alaska 99501, U.S.A. Tel: (1-907) 279-8428 Fax: (1-907) 279-9271 Kansas City Consulate-General of Japan 2519 Commerce Tower 911 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri 64105-2076, U.S.A. Tel: (1-816) 471-0111~3, 471-0118 Fax: (1-816) 472-4248 San Francisco Consulate-General of Japan 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94105, U.S.A. Tel: (1-415) 777-3533 Fax: (1-415) 974-3660 Seattle Consulate-General of Japan 601 Union Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101, U.S.A. Tel: (1-206) 682-9107~10 Fax: (1-206) 624-9097 Chicago Consulate-General of Japan Olympia Centre, Suite 1100 737 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611, U.S.A. Tel: (1-312) 280-0400 Fax: (1-312) 280-9568 Detroit Consulate-General of Japan 200 Renaissance Center, Suite 3450 Detroit, Michigan 48243, U.S.A. Tel: (1-313) 567-0120, 0179, 4717 Fax: (1-313) 567-0274 New Orleans Consulate-General of Japan Suite 2050, One Poydras Plaza 639 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, U.S.A. Tel: (1-504) 529-2101, 2102, 2641 Fax: (1-504) 568-9847 New York Consulate-General of Japan 299 Park Avenue New York, NY 10171, U.S.A. Tel: (1-212) 371-8222 Fax: (1-212) 319-6357 Houston Consulate-General of Japan First Interstate Bank Plaza, Suite 5300 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, Texas 77002, U.S.A. Tel: (1-713) 652-2977 Fax: (1-713) 651-7822 Portland Consulate-General of Japan 2400 First Interstate Tower, 1300 S.W. 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201, U.S.A. Tel: (1-503) 221-1811 Fax: (1-503) 224-8936 Boston Consulate-General of Japan Federal Reserve Plaza, 14th Floor 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02210, U.S.A. Tel: (1-617) 973-9772~4 Fax: (1-617) 542-1329 Honolulu Consulate-General of Japan 1742 Nuuanu Avenue Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-3294, U.S.A. Tel: (1-808) 536-2226 Fax: (1-808) 537-3276 Miami Consulate-General of Japan World Trade Center Building, Suite 3200 80 S.W. 8th Street Miami, Florida 33130, U.S.A. Tel: (1-305) 530-9090 Fax: (1-305) 530-0950 Los Angeles Consulate-General of Japan 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, California 90071, U.S.A. Tel: (1-213) 617-6700 Fax: (1-213) 617-6727 Canada Embassy of Japan 255 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario KIN 9E6, Canada Tel: (1-613) 241-8541 Fax: (1-613) 241-2232 Vancouver Consulate-General of Japan 900-1177 West Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C., V6E 2K9, Canada Tel: (1-604) 684-5868 Fax: (1-604) 684-6939 Edmonton Consulate-General of Japan 2480 ManuLife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3S4, Canada Tel: (1-403) 422-3752, 423-4750 Fax: (1-403) 424-1635 Toronto Consulate-General of Japan Suite 2702, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower P.O. Box 10 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1A1, Canada Tel: (1-416) 363-7038 Fax: (1-416) 367-9392 Montreal Consulat G=E9n=E9ral du Japon 600 rue de la Gaucheti=E8re ouest, Suite 2120 Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec, H3B 4L8, Canada Tel: (1-514) 866-3429 Fax: (1-514) 395-6000 Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Subject: L&J: An Unsound Lawyer's "Unsound Constitution" Article (fwd) Date: 19 Aug 1997 12:53:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com I took the time to type this up because I want to see the topic debated, and this lawyer thrashed. This article is a remarkable example of slippery lawyer logic, wherein the imagination of Mr. Fletcher posits a "new Constitution" that supposedly flowed from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and the 13th-15th Amendments. In effect, this "new Constitution" makes the People mere vote givers, and "beneficiaries of legislation," Oh, by the way, the "new or second Constitution," this product of law professor Fletcher's fevered brain, grants the federal government vast new powers--needless to say. Mr. Fletcher, of course, thinks this is just grand. He makes the socialistic argument that the "new Constitution" requires that the federal government interfere in the states and in citizens' private affairs in order to "help the disadvantaged" and to aid the "weak." Yeah, right. This needs to be debated. This method of using slippery and solipistic language and logic to legitimize the federal government, while at the same time labeling anyone who thinks the "original Constitution" (meaning the only one of 1789) is on par with Timothy McVeigh. Fletcher is using McVeigh's reputation and the crime of the Murrah building to taint us all with the dangerous extremist brush. Let's here from some grounded, if "originalist" Constitutionalists out there. And let's whack this weenie. Patricia Neill >From The New Republic, June 23, 1997 Unsound Constitution by George P. Fletcher* When the police stopped Timothy McVeigh seventy-five miles from the freshly exploded Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, he was wearing a T-shirt with an apparently incriminating message on the front: "Sic semper tyrannis." The message on the back was just as provocative: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." An illustration of "the tree of liberty" dripped blood. At the trial in Denver, which concluded with a guilty verdict last week, prosecutors presented the content of McVeigh's shirt as evidence that he was a madman capable of killing scores of innocent people. Prosecutor Joseph Hartzler, who presented the case against McVeigh, implied as much in his opening statement to the jury. Referring to the language of the shirt and similar political slogans, Hartzler said, "These documents are virtually a manifesto declaring McVeigh's intention." The jury obviously agreed, finding McVeigh guilty on all charges against him, including eight counts of first degree murder. Surely the verdict was reasonable. The case against McVeigh established fairly strongly that he was the Oklahoma City bomber. But the underlying assumption in the case--that McVeigh's beliefs define him as an extremist--is not quite right. After all, are the words that McVeigh carried on his chest really so radical? "Sic semper tyrannis" was popular among revolutionary leaders long before John Wilkes Both gave it an infamous sting. Thomas Jefferson's metaphor of "the tree of liberty" is no more outrageous than Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" or New Hampshire's license plate motto, "Live free or die." More important, McVeigh's belief that the Constitution should be interpreted *exactly* as it was written is surprisingly conventional. Not only is it in line with the conceptions held by many of the nation's founders, but it lives on today in the works of an influential minority of legal scholars and advocates. Although we generally teach lawyers to read the Constitution as judges have read it over time, many contemporary judges--Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Robert Bork--hold that we should read the Constitution precisely as it is written. If these "originalists" are right, then McVeigh had a reason to think the Brady Bill's restrictions on gun ownership were a direct assault on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Similarly, McVeigh was employing--if perhaps stretching-- originalist logic when he concluded that the federal raid on Waco violated the Branch Davidians' First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. Faced with a government that he believed had systemically violated the Constitution's core rights, McVeigh also had at least some reason to believe it was appropriate to take up arms. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28: "[I]f the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource...." Of course, the concept of "arms" may not have included Ryder trucks wired to explode next to federal buildings, but the idea of armed resistance against "usurpers" is rooted in the original understanding of the Constitution. Let me be clear: this is not at all to say that McVeigh had any legitimate reason to kill 168 people, nor is it to say that originalist legal scholars are responsible for McVeigh and his terrorist ilk. But McVeigh's notion of the Constitution, a notion that in his deranged mind led to terrorism, is far more influential than we commonly assume. And it is fundamentally wrong. With the shots "heard round the world," Americans rebelled against an oppressive foreign authority. Then, after a generation as semi-independent states, they entered into a compact as "the People" in order, as the Preamble to the Constitution reads, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.: The purpose of the 1789 Constitution was to charter a government of limited powers that could never become a tyrannical overlord. To guard against government's tendency toward self-aggrandizement, the framers not only expressly delimited the powers of Congress but tried in the Bill of Rights to carve out certain areas of freedom--speech, press, assembly, religion, arms--that would remain beyond the federal government's reach. They would remain vested in "the People," who preceded and superseded the Constitution they established. Of all the myths that support Timothy McVeigh's antigovernment's reading of the Constitution, the greatest is the idea that the People are sovereign and superior to the Constitution. In this argument, the People--represented if necessary by McVeigh and alleged accomplice Terry Nichols--are superior to constituted government authority. They are in a position to judge whether the government has exceeded its authority. Sitting as jurors, they can nullify laws democratically enacted and properly applied. As freeman they must be prepared, as Hamilton argued, "to rush tumultuously to arms" as soon as "the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers." This is exactly what some on the radical right are starting to do. The illegal stockpiling of weapons helped prompt the federal siege at Waco, which outraged McVeigh so deeply. And the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), a small nationwide movement, has begun a major campaign in many western states to inform those called for jury duty of their power and supposed right to nullify the law as instructed to them by the trial judge. To many, the distribution of leaflets near courthouses urging juries not to apply democratically enacted law looks very much like obstruction of justice, if not overt sedition against the government. But the devout believers of FIJA see themselves as no more than engaging in civil education. They are joined in this campaign to exploit the jury's power to say no by outspoken members of the black left, who argue, as does George Washington University law professor Paul Butler, that justice for blacks requires jury nullification in certain cases in which African Americans are likely to be targeted. Right and left are able to cite on their behalf--accurately--academic writing that praises the jury's ultimate power to pass on the wisdom of laws it is supposed to apply. If only eccentrics of the fringe believed in this exalted power of the People, we could dismiss them as mere and uninfluential anarchists. But these views are not foreign to the academy of constitutional law teachers, nor are they the exclusive province of the fringe. In "We the People," an influential study of constitutional history, Yale professor Bruce Ackerman, a liberal, argues that the People retain the authority to legitimate illegal constitutional transformations, such as the adoption of the Constitution itself, which was illegal under the amendment provision of the Articles of Confederation, and the transformation of Supreme Court jurisprudence after FDR's high-handed court-packing threat. The People can provide their imprimatur at the ballot box, as they did when they voted by a large majority for Roosevelt, or, implicitly, by adopting a practice of support and adherence to new laws. However they do it, the mythical People still function as the ultimate source of legitimacy. The power to say "yes" entails, of course, the power to say "no." And therefore it is but a short step from Ackerman's view to the right wing's faith in jury nullification as a legitimate response to unjust authority and the necessity of being armed to say "no" to the "usurpers." Writing in "The Yale Journal" in 1991, Yale law professor Akhil Amar interpreted the First Amendment's "right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as "an express reservation of the collective right of We the people to assemble in a future convention and exercise our sovereign right to alter or abolish our government by a simple majority vote." The thought that a convention could abolish the federal government, including the Supreme Court, before the Court could rule on the convention's legality, goes to the heart of our constitutional confusion. We tolerate and encourage views about the constitutional power of the People that some receptive minds take to be an invitation to fight for the original republic. Some might think that a clear distinction presents itself between fighting the British and taking up arms against a federal government that appears to be encroaching on our freedoms. As prosecutor Hartzler argued to the jury, "Our forefathers didn't fight British women and children. They fought other soldiers. They fought them face to face, hand to hand. They didn't plant bombs and run away wearing earplugs." That is so, but, as McVeigh might well have seen it, the federal government had shown by its own example that the rules of engagement had changed. After all, women and children perished at Waco, too . Still, there's a more fundamental problem with the originalist line of reasoning. The "original republic"--the one for which our "forefathers" fought "face to face, hand to hand"--exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War. That conflict decided once and forever that the people and the States do not have the power to govern their local lives apart from the nation as a whole. The People have no power either to secede as states or to abolish the national government. The original republic died because it was grounded in a contradiction. It glorified the freedom of some and condoned the slavery of others. It valued persons "not free" at only three-fifths the Census value of those defined as free persons. It required free states to return runaway slaves to their owners. The flaw that spelled its demise was the failure of the framers to recognize the principle of human equality. Neither the word "equality" nor its practical equivalent appears in the document. (The "Privileges and Immunities" clause of Article IV could have become the near equivalent, but it became a dead letter instead.) Today, it would be unthinkable to adopt a constitution anyplace in the world without a commitment to equality. But in late-eighteenth-century America, equality was less important than the fear that a federal government might infringe our liberties. The new Constitution--the one that shapes and guides the national government and disturbs the new patriots to their core--begins to take hold in the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln skips over the original Constitution and reconstitutes it according to the principles of equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence. This short speech functions as the Preamble to a new charter that crystallizes after the war in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Gettysburg Address signals the beginning of a new Constitution. The language is so familiar that we do not realize the implicit transformation: Fourscore and seven years ago our father brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal ... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that the nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Three changes signaled by Lincoln's words shake the foundation of our constitutional identity: the notion of organic nationhood-- including the dead and the unborn--replaces the sovereignty of the (living) People. Equality, absent from the original document, comes front and center. And the United States evolves from an elitist republic into a democracy "of the people, by the people, for the people." The reconstituting of "We the People" as the American nation denies the spirit of the new Constitution. The new nation, mentioned four times in Lincoln's 272 indelible words, is shaped by its past as well as its future. The entire focus of the Gettysburg Address is whether the nation "can long endure," whether the "nation might live."A nation born in a historic struggle will not hold itself hostage to those who say they speak in the here and now in the name of the People. Lincoln's nation could not be dismembered. In contrast, those who wrote the 1789 Constitution had little sense of an American nation originating in the past and inhabiting the future; they wrote and argued as though they thought primarily of their moment, their generation, as unique. Those living then, and by extension any cohort who loved freedom as they did, could simply decide to dismantle the United States--it was merely a creation of the present. It was Jefferson, after all, who famously wrote that no constitution should be valid past nineteen years. The recognition that the People are one group, an American nation, makes possible the sustained campaign to convert the elitist Constitution of 1789 into an egalitarian constitution of popular suffrage--that is, a constitution that bases democratic rule on the majority of *all* the people. Beginning with the Fifteenth Amendment, securing the right to vote for emancipated slaves, the United States begins to take democracy seriously. Of the ensuing twelve amendments to the Constitution, five are devoted to increasing the franchise and the role of the citizenry in running the country. Nationhood, equality and democracy--these are the ideas that forge a new Constitution. But Lincoln was a good lawyer, and lawyers always seek to camouflage conceptual transformations as the continuous outgrowth of language used in the past. That's why he invoked government "by the people" to capture the new principle of democratic rule. But the significance of the People had changed. They no longer exist as the guarantors of the Constitution, the bestowers of legitimacy. States and individuals can no longer set themselves apart from the nation. The people exist exclusively as voters, as office holders, and as beneficiaries of legislation. The relevant concept in the new Constitution, then, is not "We the People" but "We the citizens of the nation"--and this transformation is apparent in the post-Civil War amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, gives us our first concept of national citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are henceforth citizens. Prior to the Civil War, we allowed each state to define for itself who could become a citizen of the state and, on that basis, a citizen of the country. The new definition of who belongs to the polity marks a new beginning. The Fourteenth Amendment further confirms the new sense of the United States as a national community with its clause prohibiting the states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or denying] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These clauses account for the enormous expansion of judge-made constitutional law in the last fifty years, particularly in the field of criminal justice. Under these clauses of the new Constitution, virtually all the constitutional guarantees of the Bill of Rights apply, for the first time, to the states. Yet, as do all proper constitutions, the Fourteenth Amendment contains its own grant of legislative authority to Congress to implement its principles by appropriate legislation. The Thirteenth Amendment also wreaks a radical transformation. On the surface, it merely abolishes slavery--expected in the wake of the war. But the Thirteenth Amendment also signals a new conception of constitutional power. The original Constitution limits only government; the Thirteenth Amendment is the first direct intervention into the private affairs of citizens. The amendment invalidates a certain kind of private relationship--namely, involuntary servitude--and provides the legal hook for the first Civil Rights Acts, by recognizing that citizens--not just government--can deprive an individual of his or her constitutional rights. (This is the constitutional basis for the federal government's prosecuting and conviction Lemrick Nelson for violating the civil rights of Yankel Rosenbaum by fatally wounding him on a public thoroughfare.) The most significant and, for fundamentalists, the most threatening aspect of the new Constitution is that it necessitates an activist federal government committed to preserving some semblance of equality--in other words, the government must intervene in the states and in private affairs to protect the disadvantaged. Early efforts in this direction--the income tax amendment, prohibition--represented significant moves to level the playing field and protect the weak. And, after the economic collapse of 1929, national government took its new role even more seriously with the New Deal. This is the point at which the conflict with the original Constitution becomes acute. Some constitutional fundamentalists, like McVeigh, explicitly reject the new Constitution in their propaganda. They maintain that the original Constitution--everything that comes before the Thirteenth Amendment--is the only legitimate one, and they believe their task as freemen is to protect the People against the "usurpers" who would have the federal government exceed its minimalist origins. So if the extremists can grasp this distinction, why is it foreign to the rest of us? Quite simply, because we do not teach this historical rupture--not in our grade schools, not in our law schools. We are all good lawyers, and therefore, like Lincoln, we pretend that the second Constitution is simply the natural continuation of the founding document. According to the official story, we corrected the racist mistakes of 1789 and got the Constitution on the right track. "We the People" are still in power. Our constitutional situation would be much clearer if we marked the discontinuity in our history by calling the first Constitution the "founding republic" and the second, say, the "egalitarian republic." This new terminology would acknowledge that our constitutional history is close to that of France, with its multiple constitutions, including some legal institutions such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the "Code civil" that date back as far as the late eighteenth century. The sentencing of Timothy McVeigh and the ensuing trial of Terry Nichols will presumably play out without any serious attention to the defendants' constitutional beliefs. But there was more at stake in this trial than the terrorism of one or two men. The basic question is whether we as a legal and intellectual community will face up to the truth about the false view of the Constitution that we have nurtured for generations. We have propagated myths about the binding force of the 1789 Constitution that some people, unfortunately, take too zealously. We have planted the ideas that have grown crooked in the minds of some. On the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, the jury reached a well founded verdict on McVeigh's guilt. Yet we should be filled with horror that this heinous crime was committed with motives derived from the basic teachings of the republic. *George P. Fletcher is Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at the Columbia Law School. He is the author, most recently, of "With Justice for Some: Victims' Rights in Criminal Trials (Addison-Wesley). =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: jim bohan Subject: Rats Date: 19 Aug 1997 13:32:08 -0600 I had a crash and had to reinitialize. Amongst stuff lost was the address book. Would all of you with whom I communicate please drop me a line so I can replace the lost names and addresses, please. thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: RE: Rats Date: 19 Aug 1997 13:53:35 -0500 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9CEF.1AC70A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had a crash and had to reinitialize. Amongst stuff lost was the address book. Would all of you with whom I communicate please drop me a line so I can replace the lost names and addresses, please. 1911a1@gte.net, as should be shown above (but I'm not certain) Hey, how can I get back on noban since I changed providers? When I tried to re-subscribe, the listproc told me to suck air. Brad ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9CEF.1AC70A60 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhYSAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQmAAQAhAAAAOTcyRDQwQUY2MjA4RDExMUI3NDkwMDgwNUZFMkVB MEMAEQcBBYADAA4AAADNBwgAEwANADUAIwACAFYBASCAAwAOAAAAzQcIABMADQA1ACMAAgBWAQEE kAYASAEAAAEAAAANAAAAAwAAMAAAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1u AN0BD1QCAAAAACdyb2NAbWFpbC54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20nAFNNVFAAcm9jQG1haWwueG1pc3Npb24u Y29tAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAFgAAAHJvY0BtYWlsLnhtaXNzaW9uLmNv bQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAADABUMAQAAAAIBCzABAAAAGwAAAFNNVFA6Uk9DQE1BSUwuWE1J U1NJT04uQ09NAAAeAAEwAQAAABgAAAAncm9jQG1haWwueG1pc3Npb24uY29tJwAeACA6AQAAABgA AAAncm9jQG1haWwueG1pc3Npb24uY29tJwALAEA6AQBPQwMA/g8GAAAAAwAAOQAAAADSQAENgAQA AgAAAAIAAgABBIABAAkAAABSRTogUmF0cwCLAgEDkAYA5AQAABoAAAALACMAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAA AwAmAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAAMALgAAAAAAAwAGEPiJxssDAAcQNwEAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAElIQURB Q1JBU0hBTkRIQURUT1JFSU5JVElBTElaRUFNT05HU1RTVFVGRkxPU1RXQVNUSEVBRERSRVNTQk9P S1dPVUxEQUxMT0ZZT1VXSVRIV0hPTUlDT01NVU5JQ0FURVBMRUEAAAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAA AAIBCRABAAAAEAIAAAwCAAAcAwAATFpGdUEXoIL/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMFdAIAY2gKwHNl dO4yBgAGwwKDMgPGBxMCg7ozEw19CoAIzwnZOxX/eDI1NQKACoENsQtgbjBnMTAzFCALA2xpCDE4 MALRaS0xNH40DfAM0BpjC1UUIgwBcE0DYHQFkAVASSARwGSIIGEgBQBhc2gc0MZuHMAconRvIBYA C4AEaXQHMWl6ZS4gtxNwBGAZAHMFQB9QdQ3QNiAVkB9Rdx0gHdBoZeYgCosZwDM2Gw8cFRywTmQW AAQRBuBvax7RV1UIYGwcwWwDIG8fwHnPCGAgIB5QHUB3aANwHHGRBaBtbXUDAGNhHDA6IAtQZR0g IJAjYG9wXiAHgCCmHOAZwG4gkHPfHfAl4QORFgALUWMgkCByeR/jbmEHgh1iI0UHkCz9JrUuIL8h xxLyAdAgrC0rAxVgAEAgMTkxMWGoMUBnHDAuKGB0K2C3IEEdMCRDYihxJaB3A6CJAaBvdiCQKGJ1 HGH6JyXAbhwgHPAEkAGQC4DGKS4FLgVIZXkrYDHRuyjTHIBnEgAjsADQayTA3wOgMxA14AOgAJBu KXEl4Z8RwBkACYAmsANgdmkEgdxzPyQRIIA1YnQIgR3F8C1zdWIE8jGQK2Apo/UEAHQcAWMd0SRh J4Ed4bc5sDYBC3ByK+YuBUIdEBZkM9wVIQA+sB4AcAABAAAACQAAAFJFOiBSYXRzAAAAAAIBcQAB AAAAFgAAAAG8nRkCXnCVILEI1hHRgq0AoMkMUy4AAEAAOQBwJGIy0ay8AQMA8T8JBAAAHgAeDAEA AAADAAAARVgAAB4AHwwBAAAAQQAAAC9PPU1JRC1BTUVSSUNBIFJFR0lPTkFMIENPVU5DSUwvT1U9 TUFSQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUJBTFBFUlQAAAAAAgH5PwEAAABdAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAa tLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPU1JRC1BTUVSSUNBIFJFR0lPTkFMIENPVU5DSUwvT1U9TUFSQy9D Tj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUJBTFBFUlQAAAAAHgD4PwEAAAAMAAAAQnJhZCBBbHBlcnQAAgH7PwEA AABdAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPU1JRC1BTUVSSUNBIFJFR0lPTkFM IENPVU5DSUwvT1U9TUFSQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUJBTFBFUlQAAAAAHgD6PwEAAAAMAAAA QnJhZCBBbHBlcnQAQAAHMEAC7yzRrLwBQAAIMKCrYzLRrLwBAwANNP0/AAACARQ0AQAAABAAAABU lKHAKX8QG6WHCAArKiUXHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAD5OQ== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9CEF.1AC70A60-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Rats Date: 19 Aug 1997 15:00:59 -0700 jim bohan wrote: > > I had a crash and had to reinitialize. Amongst stuff lost was the > address book. Would all of you with whom I communicate please drop me > a line so I can replace the lost names and addresses, please. > > thanks. Skip Leuschner 23701 NW Hillhurst Rd Ridgefield, WA 98642 (360) 887-8015 Voice (360) 887-4340 FAX (shared w/ online) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: Rats Date: 09 Aug 1997 12:44:49 PST That's because you forgot to provide a PGP Public Key for dealling with included secret messages, like the one you included here. Not being able to deal with it, the listproc assigned you to the, "Jolly Joker", category and dumped you out on your ear. :-) On Aug 19, Brad Alpert wrote: >------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9CEF.1AC70A60 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I had a crash and had to reinitialize. Amongst stuff lost was the >address book. Would all of you with whom I communicate please drop me >a line so I can replace the lost names and addresses, please. > >1911a1@gte.net, as should be shown above (but I'm not certain) > >Hey, how can I get back on noban since I changed providers? When I tried >to re-subscribe, the listproc told me to suck air. > >Brad > > >------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9CEF.1AC70A60 >Content-Type: application/ms-tnef >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > >eJ8+IhYSAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy >b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQmAAQAhAAAAOTcyRDQwQUY2MjA4RDExMUI3NDkwMDgwNUZFMkVB >MEMAEQcBBYADAA4AAADNBwgAEwANADUAIwACAFYBASCAAwAOAAAAzQcIABMADQA1ACMAAgBWAQEE >kAYASAEAAAEAAAANAAAAAwAAMAAAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1u >AN0BD1QCAAAAACdyb2NAbWFpbC54bWlzc2lvbi5jb20nAFNNVFAAcm9jQG1haWwueG1pc3Npb24u >Y29tAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAFgAAAHJvY0BtYWlsLnhtaXNzaW9uLmNv >bQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAAAAADABUMAQAAAAIBCzABAAAAGwAAAFNNVFA6Uk9DQE1BSUwuWE1J >U1NJT04uQ09NAAAeAAEwAQAAABgAAAAncm9jQG1haWwueG1pc3Npb24uY29tJwAeACA6AQAAABgA >AAAncm9jQG1haWwueG1pc3Npb24uY29tJwALAEA6AQBPQwMA/g8GAAAAAwAAOQAAAADSQAENgAQA >AgAAAAIAAgABBIABAAkAAABSRTogUmF0cwCLAgEDkAYA5AQAABoAAAALACMAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAA >AwAmAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAAMALgAAAAAAAwAGEPiJxssDAAcQNwEAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAElIQURB >Q1JBU0hBTkRIQURUT1JFSU5JVElBTElaRUFNT05HU1RTVFVGRkxPU1RXQVNUSEVBRERSRVNTQk9P >S1dPVUxEQUxMT0ZZT1VXSVRIV0hPTUlDT01NVU5JQ0FURVBMRUEAAAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAA >AAIBCRABAAAAEAIAAAwCAAAcAwAATFpGdUEXoIL/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMFdAIAY2gKwHNl >dO4yBgAGwwKDMgPGBxMCg7ozEw19CoAIzwnZOxX/eDI1NQKACoENsQtgbjBnMTAzFCALA2xpCDE4 >MALRaS0xNH40DfAM0BpjC1UUIgwBcE0DYHQFkAVASSARwGSIIGEgBQBhc2gc0MZuHMAconRvIBYA >C4AEaXQHMWl6ZS4gtxNwBGAZAHMFQB9QdQ3QNiAVkB9Rdx0gHdBoZeYgCosZwDM2Gw8cFRywTmQW >AAQRBuBvax7RV1UIYGwcwWwDIG8fwHnPCGAgIB5QHUB3aANwHHGRBaBtbXUDAGNhHDA6IAtQZR0g >IJAjYG9wXiAHgCCmHOAZwG4gkHPfHfAl4QORFgALUWMgkCByeR/jbmEHgh1iI0UHkCz9JrUuIL8h >xxLyAdAgrC0rAxVgAEAgMTkxMWGoMUBnHDAuKGB0K2C3IEEdMCRDYihxJaB3A6CJAaBvdiCQKGJ1 >HGH6JyXAbhwgHPAEkAGQC4DGKS4FLgVIZXkrYDHRuyjTHIBnEgAjsADQayTA3wOgMxA14AOgAJBu >KXEl4Z8RwBkACYAmsANgdmkEgdxzPyQRIIA1YnQIgR3F8C1zdWIE8jGQK2Apo/UEAHQcAWMd0SRh >J4Ed4bc5sDYBC3ByK+YuBUIdEBZkM9wVIQA+sB4AcAABAAAACQAAAFJFOiBSYXRzAAAAAAIBcQAB >AAAAFgAAAAG8nRkCXnCVILEI1hHRgq0AoMkMUy4AAEAAOQBwJGIy0ay8AQMA8T8JBAAAHgAeDAEA >AAADAAAARVgAAB4AHwwBAAAAQQAAAC9PPU1JRC1BTUVSSUNBIFJFR0lPTkFMIENPVU5DSUwvT1U9 >TUFSQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUJBTFBFUlQAAAAAAgH5PwEAAABdAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAa >tLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPU1JRC1BTUVSSUNBIFJFR0lPTkFMIENPVU5DSUwvT1U9TUFSQy9D >Tj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUJBTFBFUlQAAAAAHgD4PwEAAAAMAAAAQnJhZCBBbHBlcnQAAgH7PwEA >AABdAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPU1JRC1BTUVSSUNBIFJFR0lPTkFM >IENPVU5DSUwvT1U9TUFSQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUJBTFBFUlQAAAAAHgD6PwEAAAAMAAAA >QnJhZCBBbHBlcnQAQAAHMEAC7yzRrLwBQAAIMKCrYzLRrLwBAwANNP0/AAACARQ0AQAAABAAAABU >lKHAKX8QG6WHCAArKiUXHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAD5OQ== > >------ =_NextPart_000_01BC9CEF.1AC70A60-- -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: jim bohan Subject: Re: Rats Date: 19 Aug 1997 16:55:45 -0600 thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Netline To Congress Date: 20 Aug 1997 07:30:15 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:45:34 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >To: Liberty Belle >Subject: Netline To Congress > >> NETLINE TO CONGRESS >> >> http://www.america-collins.com/netline.htm >> >> WHAT IS IT? >> >> Netline To Congress is an ambitious pro-active program carefully >> planned and designed to meaningfully and effectively communicate the >> Will of the American People to their Senators and Congressmen, the >> purpose of which is to motivate such officials, without reservation, >> to ardently and fully restore, preserve, honor, and protect, in spirit >> as well as in fact, the Bill of Rights and a Constitutional government >> in the United States of America. >> >> HOW DOES IT WORK AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE? >> >> >> >> Additionally, once a week the previous five (5) Daily Questions and >> responses are tabulated in a computer database, and the statistical >> results are printed in a report. A copy of the printed report is then >> delivered to the Washington D.C. office of every Senator and >> Congressman, and is also delivered to the offices of the Clerk of the >> Senate and House of Representatives. In the event that the e-mail is >> ignored the hard copy printed report serves as public notice of the >> opinion votes. >> >> >> Senator and Congressman. >> >> >> >> >> >> The power underlying the approach being taken by Netline To Congress >> rests in today's computer technology and the Internet. For those >> intrigued by numbers, consider the mathematical events resulting from >> 50,000 individuals responding to just one Daily >> Question. 50,000 x 535 e-mail messages = 26,750,000. Over 26 million >> e-mail messages! 500,000 x 535 e-mail messages = 267,500,000. Over 267 >> million e-mail messages! Of course, such amount of e-mail would be >> trashed without first being read. Even today, most e-mail messages to >> members of Congress simply cause to be generated an automated >> impersonal response. The point, however, to grasp is that such >> documented and enormously focused effort occurring every day will lead >> to other impactful >> >> One way or the other, the Will of the People will prevail! >> >> INDIVIDUALS MAY SUBMIT QUESTIONS >> >> Individuals are invited to submit on-line questions to Netline To >> Congress for consideration to be posted as the Daily Question. An >> individual who has his or her question picked to be the Daily Question >> will receive a Certificate of Outstanding Citizenship from the First >> American Constitutional Committee. >> **************************************************************** >> >> NETLINE TO CONGRESS >> Sponsored by: >> America-Collins and >> Charles E. Collins (1996 Independent Presidential Candidate) >> 5736 Highway 42 North, Forsyth, GA 31029 >> Office: 912-994-4064 Fax: 912-994-4066 Voice Mail: 800-286-0558 >> E-mail: netline-america@wwnet.net >> >> Charles E. Collins > > "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: Subject: (fwd) CS: Legal-Hampshire police inspector's hand-in (fwd) Date: 20 Aug 1997 07:48:12 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (Schuetzen) X-No-Archive: Yes FORWARDED On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:18:22 -0700 (PDT), "'Steven Kendrick'" <73612.2132@compuserve.com> wrote: Front page of the Hampshire plod "Frontline" newspaper. Issue 45, July 97= "Hand Gun Handover Begins" (Picture of plod with S+W 686) "The first of about 6,000 handguns held by individuals in hampshire and the isle of wight have been handed in to police across the two counties. Up to 150 weapons every day are being collected by special teams of officers at 11 designated stations across the county. Thirty officers and civilian support staff are involved in the three month operation. As part of the process a special helpline has been set up and already it is receiving as many as 100 calls a day from licence holders concerned about the arrangements for the hand-in. A seminar was held at police headquarters in june for for the secretaries= of gun clubs to make sure they were fully aware of the arrangements. The operation - which started on july 1 - was brought about by the Firearms amendment act which outlawed the ownership of hanguns (er.. no it didn't). The new legislation was brought in following a public outcry about private firearm ownership in the wake of the killings in Dunblane. Among those affected by the enforced hand-in of weapins is Inspector Rogan Olding, the hampshire cuntstabulary Firearms Manager, and Chairman of the hampshire police Gun Club. A licence holder for the past 27 years, he must now relinquish his treasured Smith and Wesson .357 magnum, as well as coordinating the hand-in of weapons from across the two counties. "The hand-in has got off to a smooth start, and most gun owners are patient an understandingwhen making appointments." he said. "We have come up against minimal opposition from a handful of licence holders unwilling to sacrifice their guns." "The volume of weapons coming in is incredible, with something in the region of 150 a day being handed over." Large quantities of ammunition and accessories are also being surrendered, and the need for a streamlined handover process is now obvious (no shit!). All of hampshire's gun owners either have or will be contacted by police with specific information on local hand-in arrangements and details of the compensation on offer. After the hand-in period has expired all weapons, except those of historic value, will be destroyed. Once inspector Olding has handed over his gun he will join other enthusiasts in search of alternatives to handgun shooting. The options are to use different calibre weapons, or travel abroad to countries where gun laws are not so strict. "After nearly 30 years competition shooting, I don't want to give up, and the police gun club will not be disbanding." said insp. Olding. "We are hopeful of finding other ways to continue with a sport we enjoy."" Quite an interesting article, especially for a plod publication. Apart from the obvious/deliberate errors (and bad grammar) one point which strikes me in the middle of the forehead like a suicidal bumblebee is: What sense is there in a law which requires a police inspector and competition shot of 30 years standing to hand in his gun and practise marksmanship abroad? There is also a brief article in today's times about a german shop manager, working in the uk, who was arrested after threatening two thieves with a relica gun. In germany shop owners are _expected_ to take on thieves. =46rom James Hurr. cjhurr@mymac.netkonect.co.uk Also available on oral/aural virtua-text @ 01730-895120 and on electro-cellulosic actua-text @ 01730-893459 "Do not run, we are your friends!" The Martians, Mars Attacks! -- Who are these license holders giving them "minimal opposition". What precisely is that opposition? I also agree with James, the ad being run by the HO is highly misleading. It says "Handgun Ban Surrender Period" followed by "from 1 July large-calibre handguns are prohibited in Great Britain" What precisely is a "large-calibre handgun" pray tell? If one has a 5.45x18mm PSM pistol, that's prohibited, yet it is only =2E20" calibre. And if one has a Thompson/Center Contender fitted with a 23" barrel (and they do exist) that is not prohibited. The reason being that the law bans "small firearms" not handguns. Completely void from the ad or any of the literature is that many rifles are also banned because of their short barrel length or because they have "movable stocks", the prime example being the AR-7 Explorer rifle. And what about people with coach guns with 11" barrels on their FAC? Banned as well. And the ad doesn't even mention expanding ammunition. Anyone who has got a box of expanding rifle ammo for target shooting is also shafted, and I bet many of them don't know it yet. Is there anyone on the list who only has rifles on their FAC? Have you received the "Changes in the Law" booklet? Steve. | ====++++====++++==== | To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send email to | majordomo@mail-it.com with no subject and the text: | | subscribe cybershooters (or unsubscribe cybershooters) | | as the first and only line in the message body. For further | information, please refer to the Cybershooters FAQ at | http://www.tsra.demon.co.uk/csfaq.htm -- _______________________________________ Charles L Hamilton (chasm@insync.net) Houston, TX X-No-Archive: Yes -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Netline To Congress Date: 20 Aug 1997 09:22:34 -0700 Tom Cloyes wrote: > > >Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:45:34 -0400 > >From: E Pluribus Unum > >To: Liberty Belle > >Subject: Netline To Congress > > > >> NETLINE TO CONGRESS > >> > >> http://www.america-collins.com/netline.htm > >> > >> WHAT IS IT? > >> > >> Netline To Congress is an ambitious pro-active program carefully > >> planned and designed to meaningfully and effectively communicate the > >> Will of the American People to their Senators and Congressmen, the > >> purpose of which is to motivate such officials, without reservation, > >> to ardently and fully restore, preserve, honor, and protect, in spirit > >> as well as in fact, the Bill of Rights and a Constitutional government > >> in the United States of America. > >> > >> HOW DOES IT WORK AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE? > >> [snip snip] I looked over the netline page, voted for today, and looked over past questions and votes. I agree that it has potential. I'd be impressed if I could see that more than a dozen or so people voted, but those data weren't presented (although they could be easily) - only the outcome of the votes expressed in %. That's not going to fool anyone. Us Roc-ers could get together each day and vote together to produce a 90-100% outcome on just about any question. Without data showing a very large number of respondents, netline will have no credibility, and the pro staffers in congress won't be fooled or influenced. I've written this to CEC in an e-mail. The man seems to have the same don't-worry-about-credibility style in this netline as he did in his Presidential bid. You can't get respect or a place on the national stage without credibility. Regards, Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Netline To Congress Date: 20 Aug 1997 09:22:34 -0700 Tom Cloyes wrote: > > >Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:45:34 -0400 > >From: E Pluribus Unum > >To: Liberty Belle > >Subject: Netline To Congress > > > >> NETLINE TO CONGRESS > >> > >> http://www.america-collins.com/netline.htm > >> > >> WHAT IS IT? > >> > >> Netline To Congress is an ambitious pro-active program carefully > >> planned and designed to meaningfully and effectively communicate the > >> Will of the American People to their Senators and Congressmen, the > >> purpose of which is to motivate such officials, without reservation, > >> to ardently and fully restore, preserve, honor, and protect, in spirit > >> as well as in fact, the Bill of Rights and a Constitutional government > >> in the United States of America. > >> > >> HOW DOES IT WORK AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE? > >> [snip snip] I looked over the netline page, voted for today, and looked over past questions and votes. I agree that it has potential. I'd be impressed if I could see that more than a dozen or so people voted, but those data weren't presented (although they could be easily) - only the outcome of the votes expressed in %. That's not going to fool anyone. Us Roc-ers could get together each day and vote together to produce a 90-100% outcome on just about any question. Without data showing a very large number of respondents, netline will have no credibility, and the pro staffers in congress won't be fooled or influenced. I've written this to CEC in an e-mail. The man seems to have the same don't-worry-about-credibility style in this netline as he did in his Presidential bid. You can't get respect or a place on the national stage without credibility. Regards, Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [SacredBull] Pro-Gun Republican(tm) Takes On Kitchen Knives (fwd) Date: 20 Aug 1997 11:05:29 -0500 (CDT) ================================================================== SacredBull Mailing List: Because ridicule is a weapon. ================================================================== CONGRESSWOMAN PROPOSES KNIFE CONTROL Copyright (c) 1997 by Lucy Mosby-Fox Special to SacredBull News Service Congresswoman Linda "Bull" Smith (R-Washington) today introduced what she called "moderate, compromise" legislation to curb the growing national problem of kitchen knife violence. "This legislation protects the constitutional rights of all legitimate knife owners, while at the same time assuring that victims of domestic knife violence will not have to live in fear." Smith's proposed legislation would: *Require a five-day waiting period on purchase of all kitchen knives; *Ban the sale of all knives over five inches in length; *Ban all private exchanges of kitchen knives in order to make sure police and regulatory agencies have a means of recording and tracking all knife transfers; * Mandate that manufacturers stamp a 10-digit serial number on all steak knives, carving knives, filleting knives and other edged kitchen implements capable of cutting any substance more substantial than partially refrigerated butter. (Under the bill, the Secretary of Energy will be authorized to perform a $5 million study to determine the precise degree of butter refrigeration and decide which instruments qualify as assault-style butter cutters under that standard.) The bill, HR 666666, is also known as "Nicole, Jolene and Lorena's Law." "Most domestic violence is committed with something other than guns," Smith noted, "Nicole Brown Simpson wasn't killed with a gun. John Bobbitt wasn't bobbitted with a gun. And my predecessor in Congress, Jolene Unsoeld, once reportedly got so angry with her husband that she threw a steak knife at him. Domestic knife violence is a two-edged...well, is a major problem, which this bill goes a long way toward addressing." Smith says she introduced her bill in order to bring "moderation" to an issue so-far dominated by "liberal extremists." She was apparently referring to a competing bill introduced by Reps. Major Ohshit and Charles Tumor (both D-NY) that would ban all knives, letter openers, nail files and hat pins, except those in the possession of the police, military, retired police, security guards, and bodyguards of influential legislators. "When I was elected in '94, it was on the promise to get government off people's backs," Smith declared in her patented, take-no-prisoners style. "This is my latest effort to show the voters exactly how sincere I was then and now. We must not let the liberals set the knife-control agenda in this country. We Republicans must show our leadership by seizing the initiative and aggressively set the knife-control agenda ourselves." Organizations lobbying Congress on the knife violence issue were divided on the Smith proposal. A spokesperson for the National Kitchen Knife Association warned, "Once we allow controls on the sale of kitchen knives, it's only a matter of time before the knife-banners will reach into the pockets and pocketbooks of every American to remove their treasured Boy Scout knives. In the name of liberty, we must not allow this. Instead of a five-day waiting period, the National Kitchen Knife Association supports an instant check system on purchasers of all edged implements and a system of permits that would allow any American to exercise his inalienable right to kitchen knife possession after merely giving his fingerprints, photo, retinal scan, voice scan, and mental health history, taking a 200-hour training course, and paying a $250 permitting fee." Smith denied that her eventual aim was to ban all knives. However, the sophomore congresswoman, who won office as a Second Amendment purist, previously voted for the Lautenberg Amendment to remove guns from the hands of anyone who may ever have committed a violent misdemeanor, even if the act took place 20 or 30 years in the past. She has resisted repeated pleas by constituents to co-sponsor a repeal of that law. Smith is also on record as an ardent supporter of school-zone gun bans and increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Asked why guns should remain restricted when many other instruments, including fists, pose a far greater danger to victims of domestic violence, Smith responded, "Uh....well...uh..." She denies, however, that her recent anti-weapon votes and sponsorships indicate any change from her once-staunch Second Amendment position. She declares, "I completely support the Constitution...within reasonable limits, as long as individual rights are never allowed to interfere with the smooth, efficient functioning of the federal government." Sarah Whiner, a spokesperson for Kitchen Knife Control, Inc. announced that her organization will immediately begin a public awareness campaign to educate people about the dangers of kitchen knife violence. "We must change the knife-culture in this country," she declared. "People begin using knives as children, and soon they're doing disgusting things like carving steaks. It's just a small step from there to picking up a kitchen knife and using it against one's spouse or sibling, or even complete strangers on the street, including innocent children. The excuse that knives have so-called legitimate domestic uses is not enough. We must...and we will...end the scourge of kitchen knife violence in our time." Whiner called the Smith bill, "A good beginning." ***** Satire by Lucy Mosby-Fox using ideas shamelessly stolen from former supporters of Congresswoman "Bull" Smith. The information about Congresswoman Smith's anti-gun votes is fact, not fiction. Where does YOUR supposedly "pro-gun" congressperson stand on repeal of the anti-gun Lautenberg Amendment? Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has introduced a bill (HR 1009) to completely repeal the unconstitutional and outrageous Lautenberg law. If your congresscritter supports any substitute bill or refuses to support the Chenoweth bill, he or she is supporting the agenda of the gun-banners. (c) LMF 1997. Distribute at will. ================================================================== To Subscribe: Send mail to majordomo@foxvalley.net with "subscribe sacredbull" as the message and you are OURS! Hahahahaha. We don't have unsubscribe instructions. ================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: L&J: An Unsound Lawyer's "Unsound Constitution" Article (fwd) Date: 20 Aug 1997 11:11:25 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com Well, miracle of miracles -- I actually put my hands on an article tonight that I was looking for. If you really want to understand where this "law professor" is coming from, you should contact an attorney by the name of Jerome Horowitz. He had an article in the Feb. 1994 "Federal Lands Update" which outlines this theory of two constitutions as promoted by the law schools. Here is the contact info from the 1994 publication: Jerome Horowitz 2757 Buchanan Avenue Ogden, Utah 84403 801-399-2534 National Federal Lands Conference PO Box 847 Bountiful, Utah 84011 801-298-0858 The article he wrote, "The U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court," was reported to be drawn from material he was developing for a book to be called "The Constitutions [plural] of the United States." Here are some quotes: It is important to understand that the United States has not one, but two Constitutions. One is the Constitution of the Framers. This is the Constitution we read in history books and encylcopedias. The other is the Constitution of the Supreme Court. ... In time the doctrine of judicial review was changed although the label "judicial review" remained the same. Under the modern doctrine of judicial review the Supreme Court still purports to be enforcing the Constitution, but actually changes the Constitution to conform with what a majority of its justices feel the Constitution should have provided, but did not. In other words, what the Supreme Court enforces is a Constitution of its own which it refers to as the Constitution, but which in reality is not the Constitution that was drafted by the Framers and ratified by the people. This other Constitution enforced by the Supreme Court is an unwritten Constitution, the provisions of which are contained in various Supreme Court opinions. Its provisions are adopted and changed at will by the Supreme Court without any input or consent by the people. ... The modern changed concept of judicial review is a foundation principle of the constitutional philosophy that dominates the academic community today. This is particularly true in the law schools. Those who are part of the academic community are not only immersed in that philosophy continuously, but their own academic stature is dependent on at least appearing to adhere to it. Also in general, those in the academic community tend to think highly of what might be accomplished if they had the power to implement their ideas. This leads many of them to be oriented to use the government complusion [sic] to obtain desired actions. With that orientation they tend naturally to favor the predominant philosophy because it permits their ideas to be considered without the stigma of being in violation of constitutional limitations of government power. Thus the spectacle of a supposedly distinguished law professor making an utter fool of himself in public is understandable, if not excusable. Steve Washam Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:47:55 -0400 (EDT) Patricia Neill wrote: >I took the time to type this up because I want to see the topic debated, and >this lawyer thrashed. This article is a remarkable example of slippery >lawyer logic, wherein the imagination of Mr. Fletcher posits a "new >Constitution" that supposedly flowed from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and >the 13th-15th Amendments. In effect, this "new Constitution" makes the >People mere vote givers, and "beneficiaries of legislation," Oh, by the way, >the "new or second Constitution," this product of law professor Fletcher's >fevered brain, grants the federal government vast new powers--needless to >say. Mr. Fletcher, of course, thinks this is just grand. He makes the >socialistic argument that the "new Constitution" requires that the federal >government interfere in the states and in citizens' private affairs in >order to "help the disadvantaged" and to aid the "weak." Yeah, right. > >This needs to be debated. This method of using slippery and solipistic >language and logic to legitimize the federal government, while at the same >time labeling anyone who thinks the "original Constitution" (meaning the >only one of 1789) is on par with Timothy McVeigh. Fletcher is using >McVeigh's reputation and the crime of the Murrah building to taint us all >with the dangerous extremist brush. > >Let's here from some grounded, if "originalist" Constitutionalists out there. > >And let's whack this weenie. > >Patricia Neill > > > > >From The New Republic, June 23, 1997 > >Unsound Constitution >by George P. Fletcher* > > When the police stopped Timothy McVeigh seventy-five miles from the >freshly exploded Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma >City, he was wearing a T-shirt with an apparently incriminating message on >the front: "Sic semper tyrannis." The message on the back >was just as provocative: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to >time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." An illustration >of "the tree of liberty" dripped blood. > At the trial in Denver, which concluded with a guilty verdict last >week, prosecutors presented the content of McVeigh's shirt as >evidence that he was a madman capable of killing scores of innocent people. >Prosecutor Joseph Hartzler, who presented the case against >McVeigh, implied as much in his opening statement to the jury. Referring to >the language of the shirt and similar political slogans, >Hartzler said, "These documents are virtually a manifesto declaring >McVeigh's intention." The jury obviously agreed, finding McVeigh >guilty on all charges against him, including eight counts of first degree >murder. > Surely the verdict was reasonable. The case against McVeigh established >fairly strongly that he was the Oklahoma City bomber. But >the underlying assumption in the case--that McVeigh's beliefs define him as >an extremist--is not quite right. After all, are the words that >McVeigh carried on his chest really so radical? "Sic semper tyrannis" was >popular among revolutionary leaders long before John Wilkes Both gave it an >infamous sting. Thomas Jefferson's metaphor of "the tree of liberty" is no >more outrageous than Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" or >New Hampshire's license plate motto, "Live free or die." > More important, McVeigh's belief that the Constitution should be >interpreted *exactly* as it was written is surprisingly conventional. >Not only is it in line with the conceptions held by many of the nation's >founders, but it lives on today in the works of an >influential minority of legal scholars and advocates. Although we generally >teach lawyers to read the Constitution as judges have read >it over time, many contemporary judges--Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, >Robert Bork--hold that we should read the Constitution >precisely as it is written. If these "originalists" are right, then McVeigh >had a reason to think the Brady Bill's restrictions on gun >ownership were a direct assault on the Second Amendment's right to bear >arms. Similarly, McVeigh was employing--if perhaps stretching-- >originalist logic when he concluded that the federal raid on Waco violated >the Branch Davidians' First Amendment guarantee of religious >freedom. > Faced with a government that he believed had systemically violated the >Constitution's core rights, McVeigh also had at least >some reason to believe it was appropriate to take up arms. As Alexander >Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28: "[I]f the persons intrusted >with supreme power become usurpers . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously >to arms, without concert, without system, without >resource...." Of course, the concept of "arms" may not have included Ryder >trucks wired to explode next to federal buildings, but the idea >of armed resistance against "usurpers" is rooted in the original >understanding of the Constitution. > Let me be clear: this is not at all to say that McVeigh had any >legitimate reason to kill 168 people, nor is it to say that >originalist legal scholars are responsible for McVeigh and his terrorist >ilk. But McVeigh's notion of the Constitution, a notion that >in his deranged mind led to terrorism, is far more influential than we >commonly assume. And it is fundamentally wrong. > With the shots "heard round the world," Americans rebelled against an >oppressive foreign authority. Then, after a generation as >semi-independent states, they entered into a compact as "the People" in >order, as the Preamble to the Constitution reads, to "secure the >Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.: The purpose of the >1789 Constitution was to charter a government of limited powers >that could never become a tyrannical overlord. To guard against government's >tendency toward self-aggrandizement, the framers not only >expressly delimited the powers of Congress but tried in the Bill of Rights >to carve out certain areas of freedom--speech, press, assembly, >religion, arms--that would remain beyond the federal government's reach. >They would remain vested in "the People," who preceded and >superseded the Constitution they established. > Of all the myths that support Timothy McVeigh's antigovernment's >reading of the Constitution, the greatest is the idea that the People >are sovereign and superior to the Constitution. In this argument, the >People--represented if necessary by McVeigh and alleged accomplice >Terry Nichols--are superior to constituted government authority. They are in >a position to judge whether the government has exceeded its >authority. Sitting as jurors, they can nullify laws democratically enacted >and properly applied. As freeman they must be prepared, as >Hamilton argued, "to rush tumultuously to arms" as soon as "the persons >intrusted with supreme power become usurpers." > This is exactly what some on the radical right are starting to do. The >illegal stockpiling of weapons helped prompt the federal siege >at Waco, which outraged McVeigh so deeply. And the Fully Informed Jury >Association (FIJA), a small nationwide movement, has begun a major campaign >in many western states to inform those called for jury duty of their power >and supposed right to nullify the law as instructed to them by the trial >judge. To many, the distribution of leaflets near courthouses urging juries >not to apply democratically enacted law >looks very much like obstruction of justice, if not overt sedition against >the government. But the devout believers of FIJA see >themselves as no more than engaging in civil education. They are joined in >this campaign to exploit the jury's power to say no by >outspoken members of the black left, who argue, as does George Washington >University law professor Paul Butler, that justice for >blacks requires jury nullification in certain cases in which African >Americans are likely to be targeted. Right and left are able to cite >on their behalf--accurately--academic writing that praises the jury's >ultimate power to pass on the wisdom of laws it is supposed to apply. > >If only eccentrics of the fringe believed in this exalted power of the >People, we could dismiss them as mere and uninfluential anarchists. >But these views are not foreign to the academy of constitutional law >teachers, nor are they the exclusive province of the fringe. In "We >the People," an influential study of constitutional history, Yale professor >Bruce Ackerman, a liberal, argues that the People retain the >authority to legitimate illegal constitutional transformations, such as the >adoption of the Constitution itself, which was illegal under >the amendment provision of the Articles of Confederation, and the >transformation of Supreme Court jurisprudence after FDR's high-handed >court-packing threat. The People can provide their imprimatur at the ballot >box, as they did when they voted by a large majority for >Roosevelt, or, implicitly, by adopting a practice of support and adherence >to new laws. However they do it, the mythical People still >function as the ultimate source of legitimacy. The power to say "yes" >entails, of course, the power to say "no." And therefore it is but a >short step from Ackerman's view to the right wing's faith in jury >nullification as a legitimate response to unjust authority and the >necessity of being armed to say "no" to the "usurpers." > Writing in "The Yale Journal" in 1991, Yale law professor Akhil Amar >interpreted the First Amendment's "right of the people peaceably >to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as >"an express reservation of the collective right of We >the people to assemble in a future convention and exercise our sovereign >right to alter or abolish our government by a simple >majority vote." The thought that a convention could abolish the federal >government, including the Supreme Court, before the Court >could rule on the convention's legality, goes to the heart of our >constitutional confusion. We tolerate and encourage views about the >constitutional power of the People that some receptive minds take to be an >invitation to fight for the original republic. > Some might think that a clear distinction presents itself between >fighting the British and taking up arms against a federal >government that appears to be encroaching on our freedoms. As prosecutor >Hartzler argued to the jury, "Our forefathers didn't fight >British women and children. They fought other soldiers. They fought them >face to face, hand to hand. They didn't plant bombs and run away >wearing earplugs." > That is so, but, as McVeigh might well have seen it, the federal >government had shown by its own example that the rules of engagement >had changed. After all, women and children perished at Waco, too . > >Still, there's a more fundamental problem with the originalist line of >reasoning. The "original republic"--the one for which our >"forefathers" fought "face to face, hand to hand"--exists only in the minds >of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The republic created >in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil >War. That conflict decided once and forever that the people and >the States do not have the power to govern their local lives apart from the >nation as a whole. The People have no power either to secede >as states or to abolish the national government. > The original republic died because it was grounded in a contradiction. >It glorified the freedom of some and condoned the >slavery of others. It valued persons "not free" at only three-fifths the >Census value of those defined as free persons. It required free >states to return runaway slaves to their owners. The flaw that spelled its >demise was the failure of the framers to recognize the principle >of human equality. Neither the word "equality" nor its practical equivalent >appears in the document. (The "Privileges and Immunities" >clause of Article IV could have become the near equivalent, but it became a >dead letter instead.) Today, it would be unthinkable to adopt >a constitution anyplace in the world without a commitment to equality. But >in late-eighteenth-century America, equality was less important >than the fear that a federal government might infringe our liberties. > The new Constitution--the one that shapes and guides the national >government and disturbs the new patriots to their core--begins to take >hold in the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln skips over the original >Constitution and reconstitutes it according to the principles >of equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence. This short >speech functions as the Preamble to a new charter that crystallizes >after the war in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The >Gettysburg Address signals the beginning of a new Constitution. >The language is so familiar that we do not realize the implicit transformation: > > Fourscore and seven years ago our father brought forth on this > continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the > proposition that all men are created equal ... that we here highly > resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that the nation, > under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of > the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the > earth. > > Three changes signaled by Lincoln's words shake the foundation of our >constitutional identity: the notion of organic nationhood-- >including the dead and the unborn--replaces the sovereignty of the (living) >People. Equality, absent from the original document, comes >front and center. And the United States evolves from an elitist republic >into a democracy "of the people, by the people, for the >people." > The reconstituting of "We the People" as the American nation denies the >spirit of the new Constitution. The new nation, mentioned >four times in Lincoln's 272 indelible words, is shaped by its past as well >as its future. The entire focus of the Gettysburg Address is >whether the nation "can long endure," whether the "nation might live."A >nation born in a historic struggle will not hold itself hostage to >those who say they speak in the here and now in the name of the People. >Lincoln's nation could not be dismembered. > In contrast, those who wrote the 1789 Constitution had little sense of >an American nation originating in the past and inhabiting the >future; they wrote and argued as though they thought primarily of their >moment, their generation, as unique. Those living then, and by >extension any cohort who loved freedom as they did, could simply decide to >dismantle the United States--it was merely a creation of the >present. It was Jefferson, after all, who famously wrote that no >constitution should be valid past nineteen years. > The recognition that the People are one group, an American nation, >makes possible the sustained campaign to convert the elitist >Constitution of 1789 into an egalitarian constitution of popular >suffrage--that is, a constitution that bases democratic rule on the >majority of *all* the people. Beginning with the Fifteenth Amendment, >securing the right to vote for emancipated slaves, the United States >begins to take democracy seriously. Of the ensuing twelve amendments to the >Constitution, five are devoted to increasing the franchise and >the role of the citizenry in running the country. > >Nationhood, equality and democracy--these are the ideas that forge a new >Constitution. But Lincoln was a good lawyer, and lawyers always >seek to camouflage conceptual transformations as the continuous outgrowth of >language used in the past. That's why he invoked >government "by the people" to capture the new principle of democratic rule. >But the significance of the People had changed. They no longer >exist as the guarantors of the Constitution, the bestowers of legitimacy. >States and individuals can no longer set themselves apart >from the nation. The people exist exclusively as voters, as office holders, >and as beneficiaries of legislation. > The relevant concept in the new Constitution, then, is not "We the >People" but "We the citizens of the nation"--and this >transformation is apparent in the post-Civil War amendments. The Fourteenth >Amendment, for example, gives us our first concept of >national citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, >and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are henceforth >citizens. Prior to the Civil War, we allowed each state to define for itself >who could become a citizen of the state and, on that basis, a >citizen of the country. The new definition of who belongs to the polity >marks a new beginning. > The Fourteenth Amendment further confirms the new sense of the United >States as a national community with its clause prohibiting the >states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without >due process of law; [or denying] to any person within its >jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These clauses account for >the enormous expansion of judge-made constitutional law in the >last fifty years, particularly in the field of criminal justice. Under these >clauses of the new Constitution, virtually all the constitutional guarantees >of the Bill of Rights apply, for the first time, to the states. Yet, as do >all proper constitutions, the Fourteenth Amendment contains its own grant of >legislative authority to Congress to implement its principles by appropriate >legislation. > The Thirteenth Amendment also wreaks a radical transformation. On the >surface, it merely abolishes slavery--expected in the wake of the >war. But the Thirteenth Amendment also signals a new conception of >constitutional power. The original Constitution limits only >government; the Thirteenth Amendment is the first direct intervention into >the private affairs of citizens. The amendment invalidates a >certain kind of private relationship--namely, involuntary servitude--and >provides the legal hook for the first Civil Rights Acts, by >recognizing that citizens--not just government--can deprive an individual of >his or her constitutional rights. (This is the >constitutional basis for the federal government's prosecuting and conviction >Lemrick Nelson for violating the civil rights of Yankel >Rosenbaum by fatally wounding him on a public thoroughfare.) > The most significant and, for fundamentalists, the most threatening >aspect of the new Constitution is that it necessitates an >activist federal government committed to preserving some semblance of >equality--in other words, the government must intervene in the states and in >private affairs to protect the disadvantaged. Early efforts in this >direction--the income tax amendment, prohibition--represented >significant moves to level the playing field and protect the weak. And, >after the economic collapse of 1929, national government took its >new role even more seriously with the New Deal. > This is the point at which the conflict with the original Constitution >becomes acute. Some constitutional fundamentalists, like >McVeigh, explicitly reject the new Constitution in their propaganda. They >maintain that the original Constitution--everything that comes >before the Thirteenth Amendment--is the only legitimate one, and they >believe their task as freemen is to protect the People against the >"usurpers" who would have the federal government exceed its minimalist origins. > >So if the extremists can grasp this distinction, why is it foreign to the >rest of us? Quite simply, because we do not teach this historical >rupture--not in our grade schools, not in our law schools. We are all good >lawyers, and therefore, like Lincoln, we pretend that the second >Constitution is simply the natural continuation of the founding document. >According to the official story, we corrected the racist >mistakes of 1789 and got the Constitution on the right track. "We the >People" are still in power. Our constitutional situation would be much >clearer if we marked the discontinuity in our history by calling the first >Constitution the "founding republic" and the second, say, the >"egalitarian republic." This new terminology would acknowledge that our >constitutional history is close to that of France, with its >multiple constitutions, including some legal institutions such as the >Declaration of the Rights of Man and the "Code civil" that date back >as far as the late eighteenth century. > The sentencing of Timothy McVeigh and the ensuing trial of Terry >Nichols will presumably play out without any serious attention to the >defendants' constitutional beliefs. But there was more at stake in this >trial than the terrorism of one or two men. The basic question is >whether we as a legal and intellectual community will face up to the truth >about the false view of the Constitution that we have nurtured >for generations. We have propagated myths about the binding force of the >1789 Constitution that some people, unfortunately, take too >zealously. We have planted the ideas that have grown crooked in the minds of >some. On the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, >the jury reached a well founded verdict on McVeigh's guilt. Yet we should be >filled with horror that this heinous crime was committed >with motives derived from the basic teachings of the republic. > >*George P. Fletcher is Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at the Columbia >Law School. He is the author, most recently, of "With Justice >for Some: Victims' Rights in Criminal Trials (Addison-Wesley). -- Steve Washam Walla Walla, Washington sew@valint.net If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Psalms 11:3 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Netline To Congress Date: 20 Aug 1997 13:00:06 -0400 (EDT) At 09:22 AM 8/20/97 -0700, you wrote: > snip > >I've written this to CEC in an e-mail. The man seems to have the same >don't-worry-about-credibility style in this netline as he did in his >Presidential bid. You can't get respect or a place on the national >stage without credibility. > >Regards, Skip > > > Skip, I will admit that I didn't check into this as I only received it this morning, and passed it along for information. I'll check it out this evening, and see if there has been any interest. 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: Subject: L&J: RE: An Unsound Lawyer's "Unsound Constitution" Article (fwd) Date: 20 Aug 1997 11:59:44 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com Cc: craig@airnet.NET More commentary from Craig. Thanks! Patty craig@airnet.NET It's somehow reassuring to know that the FedZone idiocy over the 14th Amendment isn't limited to patriots living in the hills in forgotten rural areas. I wonder if this elitist fool has ever read any of the speeches of James Monroe or Andy Jackson, or any of the Congressional debate leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize, the Supreme Court basically having ruled repeatedly (and of course rightly) that the entire Civil War was unconstitutional. We were regarded as "a nation" essentially from the beginning, and the phrase "all men are created equal" was not in the Gettysburg Address but in the Declaration of Independence. This article is unadulterated ideological horse hockey. One can debate endlessly over whether slavery could have been ended without the war -- the consensus of students seems to be that for economic reasons it would have died out by the 1880s, though it's quite clear that Abolitionist agitation produced a crackdown in the South, reflected in the increasingly draconian legislation adopted by most states from the 1830s to the 1850s, and this sort of reaction might well have (tragically) prolonged slavery for a generation after it had ceased to be useful or even viable. The war did turn the South into a communistic centrally-planned state and the North into a fascist dictatorship, as has been remarked elsewhere. And unquestionably the enormous increase in Federal power led to increasing (and ultimately successful) efforts by "Progressives" like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to turn the government into an instrument for reforming society. (It is interesting to finally see a liberal acknowledge that the debacle of prohibition was all _their_ idea. It was the Great Liberal Cause early in the century, and of course it was an unmitigated disaster for American society, as drug prohibition is now.) But none of this, of course, alters the basic inescapable conclusion that George P. Fletcher is a pompous imbecile. Craig http://airnet.net/craig/g4c =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: Subject: Gov lets its self off on Randy Weaver killings. (fwd) Date: 20 Aug 1997 12:29:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Times Opinion August 20. 1997 EDITORIAL That's no Justice If one private citizen had set up another on weapons-possession charges, sent him the wrong court date to appear, shot his 14-year-old son in the back and killed him, and gunned down his wife as she stood in the doorway holding a baby, one would expect law-enforcement officials to take it pretty seriously. And so, no doubt, they would. When the feds themselves pull the trigger, however, it's a whole other story. . . . . Last week, the Justice Department announced it was dropping its investigation into the shooting deaths of a Ruby Ridge, Idaho, woman and her 14-year-old son without filing any charges against the federal agents who took part in the fatal siege. U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles, who led a 2-year inquiry into the 1992 shootings, said in a statement there was insufficient evidence to warrant criminal or civil charges in the case. The announcement was carefully timed for a late-summer Friday afternoon when no one was around to hear it, which is one measure of the agency's confidence in it. . . . . The Justice Department hastened to add that subjects of the investigation would still be exposed to internal "discipline," as if to show that the rule of law somehow still applies to the people entrusted to enforce it. Please. The family members who died hadn't been charged, much less convicted of any crime. Could anyone but a government sniper acting on government orders get away with killing them and face only "discipline?" . . . . The trouble started when federal officials tried to turn a man named Randall Weaver into an informant on a fringe political group with which they thought he had some connection. They pressed him repeatedly to sell them an illegal, sawed-off shotgun, and when finally he did, they charged him with federal gun crimes. The feds thought Mr. Weaver would cooperate with their undercover campaign and turn informant, but he refused and was charged. . . . . Problem was that the feds sent him the wrong court date. When Mr. Weaver didn't show up, they spent the next year and a half preparing for an assault on his Idaho cabin. Approaching the Weaver family cabin in August 1992, U.S. marshals stumbled on 14-year-old Sammy Weaver's dog and killed it. Sammy, not realizing who the marshals were, fired in their direction and ran. In the ensuing gun fight, one of the marshals shot Sammy in the back, killing him. A Weaver family friend returned fire, killing Marshal William Degan. . . . . In came the FBI, which promptly shot Randy Weaver as he went to see his son's body. Operating on illegal and unconstitutional "shoot-on-sight" orders, an FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, then shot Mrs. Weaver in the head as she stood in the doorway holding her infant child. . . . . Since that time, Randy Weaver and friend Kevin Harris have been acquitted on all federal murder charges. The federal judge presiding over the Weaver case blasted the FBI for its "callous disregard for the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice." The federal government has also settled a civil suit filed by Randy Weaver and his daughters by paying them $3.1 million. To date the only federal official prosecuted for what happened is FBI official Michael Kahoe, who pleaded guilty to obstructing justice after the fact by destroying key documents. That's it. . . . . FBI Director Louis Freeh has acknowledged that the Weaver case was a waste of time and resources from the beginning. Ultimately, of course, it turned out to be much worse. Some may downplay what happened to the Weavers because the reclusive family allegedly had odd political and religious ideas. But odd ideas are not a capital offense or crime here. Not yet anyway. . . . . The more serious concern is that there is a two-tiered system of justice evolving in this country -- one for the governed and another for their governors. That's an idea more repellent than anything Randy Weaver could have imagined. By its inaction, the Justice Department is making that idea a reality. ========================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Story on Ron Browns plane crash Date: 20 Aug 1997 12:30:41 -0500 (CDT) ========================================================================== Message-ID: <19970820005201.UAA25152@ladder01.news.aol.com> This story is a hoot, especially for one that refers to the USAF AIB Report on the Brown Crash. Please see some comments from me within the brackets [ ] below. >A military probe ultimately found that command >failures, pilot error and poorly designed airport >approach procedures were responsible for the >deadly accident. Investigators determined that the >CT-43, the Air Force version of a Boeing 737, was >almost 2 miles off course and that pilots trying to >land during a violent thunderstorm brought the >plane in too low and too fast. [There was NO violent thunderstorm in progress while the plane landed. The weather, if anything, was the opposite. Here is the weather as reported to the plane as it approached Dubrovnik's Cilipi Airport to land on Runway 12 (USAF AIB Report, Volume I, Page 14) "wind 110 degrees at 12 knots (that is, just about exactly on the nose of the plane -- exactly where you want the wind to be coming from when you land -- at 14 mph), ceiling 500 feet broken, 2,000 feet overcast . . . 8,000 meters visibility. . . " A light rain was falling at the time of the crash and there was no lightning in he area. If you would like further confirmation, the AIB Report states on Page 65: "Although the weather at the time of the mishap required the crew to fly and instrument approach, the weather was not a substantially contributing factor to this mishap." Anyone who tells you that the supposed "violent thunderstorm" (reported by TIME, NEWSWEEK, and HRC in her newspaper column after the crash) existed or had anythhing to do with the crash is in error.] > >Three senior Air Force officers responsible for the >aircraft, including one general and two colonels, >were dismissed as a result of the crash. > >A summary of the military's 7,100-page probe said >the Air Force pilots of the CT-43 made a series of >mistakes that caused the plane to go 1.8 miles off >course and slam into a Croatian mountaintop, killing >all 35 people aboard. > >Pilot Capt. Ashely Davis and co-pilot Capt. Tim >Shafer were experienced in transporting high-level >dignitaries, the report found, and should have >known that the poor weather made it unsafe to land >at the Dubrovnik, Croatia, airport. > [As indicated above, the weather did not make it unsafe to land -- see the quotes from the AIB Report above. If I screwed up official reports the way this UPI story did when I go over the Foster evidence, SWOPA would have my hide --- and RIGHTLY SO.] >After missing the beacon, the plane failed to lower >its flaps and landing gear, a move that would have >decreased its speed. [The beacon in question was located 11.8 nautical miles -- about 14 statute miles -- from the beginning of Runway 12. It is true that the USAF states that an aircraft is supposed to be properly configured -- flaps properly set and gear down, for example -- when crossing what is defined to be the "final approach fix." However, the AF Reg states this independent of the distance between the final approach fix and the start of the Runway. The statement quoted above is false on at least two counts. The Beacon in question was not "missed" -- it was overflown quite precisely (latitude and longitude), though the airspeed was somewhat high as the plane passed over the beacon at virtually the exact required altitude (4,100 feet instead of 4,000). And guess what, after overflying the beacon, the flaps and gear WERE lowered: According to the AIB Report (page 19), the flaps were set at 30 degrees (proper setting) and the landing gear was down.] It is far from clear that the Brown crash was anything other than an accident, but there are some unusual aspects to the crash to say the least (many of these were summarized in the two Media Bypass articles I did on the crash last year). One thing IS clear, if you try to make an informed judgment about the crash based on articles like this one, you're going to have a hard time since many of the items stated as fact the USAF Report itself indicates were NOT so. Warm regards, Hugh S. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: The Founders and "democracy" Date: 20 Aug 1997 12:42:36 -0700 (PDT) I have heard quotations from the Founders where they express hatred and distrust of "democarcy" as a form of government. I don't have any such quotes handy. Can anyone help by sending me some. If you have cites, it will help, but I will take them any way I can get them. Thanks. S. "Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." -- Peter W. Huber ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: The Founders and "democracy" Date: 20 Aug 1997 13:21:32 -0700 At 12:42 -0700 8/20/1997, sabutigo@teleport.com wrote: > I have heard quotations from the Founders where they express hatred >and distrust of "democarcy" as a form of government. I don't have any such >quotes handy. Can anyone help by sending me some. If you have cites, it will >help, but I will take them any way I can get them. > Thanks. >S. > >"Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." >-- Peter W. Huber Thomas Jefferson wrote a book titled "Democracy". In it, he is supposed to have trashed the concept as a workable model of government, principally because of the past experiences with that form of government as practiced elsewhere. Not having access to the book, I can only say what I've been told. I have the book on order from Amazon .com, which has been backordered for over a month. The book is out of print, and I don't expect to see a copy real soon. Now, with all that in mind, understand one very important thing: You won't find the word or term 'democracy' in either the Declaration of Independence, or the U.S. Constitution, or Bill of Rights. Now, you'd think that if 'democracy' was the concept that they were after, that they'd at least have the common curtesy to mention it, eh? But since they didn't, and since in the Constitution itself, a Republican form of government is guaranteed to the States, then what use is 'democracy'? And so, therein lies the rub: those who say we have 'democracy' are liars, plain and simple. We have, my good man, a Republic! And a fine one she is! But as with the past judges on the Supreme Court, it's okay to say that what you have really isn't what you have, because what you really have is something else, even though what you now have isn't even mentioned, which is to say that you don't really have anything anyway. So, quite complaining. Got that? I knew you would! ET IF and when I obtain the book, I promise to publish the complete tome here, in several parts. Education need not be expensive, just time consuming. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: The Founders and "democracy" Date: 20 Aug 1997 23:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Thanks for the info. I recall reading a booklet put out for soldiers in the U.S. Army (WWII vintage) which told soldiers how to explain our country to those overseas. It was adamant that we were not a democracy but a republic. At 01:21 PM 8/20/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 12:42 -0700 8/20/1997, sabutigo@teleport.com wrote: >> I have heard quotations from the Founders where they express hatred >>and distrust of "democarcy" as a form of government. I don't have any such >>quotes handy. Can anyone help by sending me some. If you have cites, it will >>help, but I will take them any way I can get them. >> Thanks. >>S. >> >>"Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." >>-- Peter W. Huber > > Thomas Jefferson wrote a book titled "Democracy". > In it, he is supposed to have trashed the concept as >a workable model of government, principally because of the past >experiences with that form of government as practiced elsewhere. > Not having access to the book, I can only say what I've >been told. > > I have the book on order from Amazon .com, which has been >backordered for over a month. The book is out of print, and I don't expect >to see a copy real soon. > > Now, with all that in mind, understand one very important >thing: You won't find the word or term 'democracy' in either the >Declaration of Independence, or the U.S. Constitution, or Bill of Rights. > Now, you'd think that if 'democracy' was the concept that they >were after, that they'd at least have the common curtesy to mention it, eh? > But since they didn't, and since in the Constitution itself, a >Republican form of government is guaranteed to the States, then what >use is 'democracy'? > > And so, therein lies the rub: those who say we have 'democracy' >are liars, plain and simple. We have, my good man, a Republic! And a fine one >she is! > But as with the past judges on the Supreme Court, it's okay to >say that what you have really isn't what you have, because what you really >have is something else, even though what you now have isn't even mentioned, >which is to say that you don't really have anything anyway. So, quite >complaining. > Got that? > I knew you would! >ET > IF and when I obtain the book, I promise to publish the complete >tome here, in several parts. Education need not be expensive, just time >consuming. > > > > S. "Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." -- Peter W. Huber ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Louisiana Questionable Seizures Continue (fwd) Date: 21 Aug 1997 08:12:34 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hello on the net From Robert-Springfield-MO This just in and want you to see it. They=20 could do some asset forfeiture with firearms also because, the precident may be already set with this sort of asset forfeiture. Can't tell one gov't agent from another without a gov't program sheet. =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!!! SAFAN Internet Newsletter, No. 629, August 20, 1997 LOUISIANA QUESTIONABLE SEIZURES CONTINUE By Roxana Hegeman Associated Press (Dallas Morning News) [Comment: Why the Second Amendment, you ask!!! ..... Bob Worn@aol.com] NEW ORLEANS -- Daniel Andrews, a house painter, had just finished a=20 job and pocketed $2,868 for it when he stopped near a bus stop on a=20 busy New Orleans street. What Mr. Andrews didn't know was that police had targeted that=20 neighborhood as a drug trafficking area. And Mr. Andrews fit their=20 profile, a 30-year =B7old black man with a wad of cash. Police told him their drug-sniffing dog smelled drugs on the money -- although no drugs were found on him or in his truck. They took the cash und= er Louisiana's drug asset forfeiture laws, which let police seize=20 money, vehicles and homes on the suspicion of illegal drug activity. After recent news coverage of questionable seizures, law officers in southwest parishes targeted in the reports have cut down on such=20 stops, only tempoarily. But in the past six months, New Orleans police=20 have stepped up their seizures. According to forfeiture filings in New Orleans, police seized $571,000=20 in cash, weapons and vehicles last year. In the past six months, they=20 have taken $817,000. Capt. Juan Quinton, commander of the Police Department's investi- gative unit handling seizures, credited the increase to every district=20 now reviewing every narcotics case to find items that can be seized. =20 "I'm not going to take $10 out of their wallet. The threshold is $2,000,"= =20 Capt. Quinton said. "The average person doesn't walk around with=20 that much cash in their pockets." Nearly 90 percent of seizures on New Orleans streets involve arrests,=20 he said. Louisiana's asset forfeiture laws cover only illegal drug=20 activity. Authorities also have at least 15 federal forfeiture laws -- from= =20 postal regulations to immigration laws -- to use to seize property. Timothy Meche, one of Louisiana's leading attorneys on drug forfeitures,=20 has questioned the merits of many police seizures. "If you are a young=20 person, if you are black, if you have any amount of cash and they see=20 you with it -they will take it," Mr. Meche said., Mr. Andrews said that when he was stopped, the police officer initially=20 refused to give him a receipt for his cash -- they had to call in a=20 supervisor to get that done. And then he had to go to court to force=20 police to return his money. "I needed my money," Mr. Andrews said.=20 "I had a truck note. I lost my truck. I had to do without. I had bills to= =20 take care of. That stressed the hell out of me." It took five weeks for Mr. Andrews to get his money back. The judge=20 also ordered the city to pay Mr. Andrew's attorney's fees. Mr. Meche=20 described a legal system that makes it difficult for civil forfeiture targe= ts to get their money back even when no criminal charges are filed. In=20 nine out of 10 highway stop seizures, no criminal charges are ever=20 filed, he said. In East Baton Rouge Parish, 12 Mexican migrant workers lost $31,729 --=20 their wages for a season of seven-day-a-week work in the fields --=20 when police stopped their car in April 1996. The group was headed=20 back to Mexico with the cash after working the season in fields in=20 Tennessee and North Carolina. The workers ultimately got their=20 money back after a court fight. In another well-publicized case, the police chief of Scott, La., and two= =20 of his officers were arrested in April on charges of planting drugs in the= =20 car so they could confiscate $57,000 inside the vehicle. "A lot of people throw up their hands because they are poor and unsophisticated and police get a windfall," Mr. Meche said. Under state law; the law enforcement agency can keep up to 60=20 percent of the seized assets, with 20 Percent going to the district=20 attorney's office and 20 Percent to the courts. Pete Adams, a lobbyist for the Louisiana District Attorney's Association,= =20 said recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions authorize and encourage the=20 use of highway stops for drug and criminal intervention. And police=20 contend the property forfeiture laws are important in their drug-fighting= =20 efforts. "The initial arrest may be dismissed or reduced as far as the penalty,=20 but given fhat ability to seize property allows us to have a very valuable= =20 tool," Capt. Quinton said. "We have been able to put them out of=20 business at least for a short time." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Bill Of Attainder Project (fwd) Date: 21 Aug 1997 11:00:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ********************************** BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT Press Release 8/25/97 ********************************** We are happy to announce that Oklahoma may have this nation's first real "3rd party" candidate running for office. Negotiations are taking place inside third parties and with independents to support Hoppy Heidelberg for Governor of Oklahoma. The reason these negotiations are taking place is to unify the efforts of the 3rd parties to help present issues Republicans and Democrats will not address. Hoppy Heidleberg will run on a "civil liberties" ticket. Hoppy will be running on the Reform Party ballot, but will have support from factions of other third parties. Thomas Saunders, Co-Chairman of the Third District of Oklahoma for the Libertarian Party, and founder of the Bill Of Attainder Project will coordinate efforts to formulate Hoppy's civil liberties platform with other third parties. Officers from third parties have agreed that this nation and state is virtually in a "civil liberties" state of emergency. Jack Pearson of the Reform Party has stated that, "If we do not unify our efforts our civil rights will be lost forever." "We expect Oklahomans to be shocked when we start showing them the extent to which their civil liberties have been denied, says Hoppy. We intend to not only show how Americans are being robbed of their rights, but we intend to present solutions." Governor Frank Keating will finally have to address facts and issues that he, and his Republican counterparts, and "yellow dog" Democrats do not want to talk about. With Hoppy in the race for governor the opposition will have to explain and justify making laws that plunder American life, liberty, and property. They will have to explain the corruption on Grand Juries that deny Americans the right to learn the truth about events that effect their lives. They will have to answer for the fact that Americans no longer have the right to private property, and therefor have lost true citizenship. Hoppy Heidelberg will help restore American citizenship. He will stop those laws that plunder and make us American subjects, instead of citizens. It is time for Oklahomans to realize they can lead the nation in the greatest civil liberties battle of our time. Hoppy Hedelberg has the support of thousands of political activists all over the nation. He deserves your support and the support of all Independents and 3rd party voters in the state. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Ruby Ridge Developments (fwd) Date: 21 Aug 1997 11:29:50 PST On Aug 21, Richard L Hartman wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] In case anyone cares, the Spokane paper's headline today says that the Boundary County (ID) prosecutor's office is planning today to charge Randy Harris with first degree murder and Lon Horiuchi with manslaughter. No other details are available, but there's supposedly a news conference later today. I'll post what I learn. (No, I don't know why Harris's crime is being treated as so much more severe than Horiuchi's. At this point, I'm just glad _someone_ has decided this ball shouldn't be completely dropped. IMO the more publicity on this whole incident, the better.) RLH [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ 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: Subject: RE: Davidian Prisoner On Radio/Web Saturday (fwd) Date: 22 Aug 1997 06:43:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org Davidian prisoner Paul Fatta will be interviewed by Mike McNulty on his COPS Posse program on the American Freedom Network Saturday, August 23, 8-10 AM Mountain Time, 10 AM east coast time. If you can't get that network on radio, you can hear the interview on line as it happens. But you have to go to the web page earlier to download the right program for listening. Go to: http:\WWW.Amerifree.com Paul Fatta, 39, was a long-time Davidian whose job was, among other things, buying guns and reselling them at gun shows. He was not at Mount Carmel during the 1993 federal attacks. He was convicted on NO substantial evidence of conspiring to manufacture machine guns (and another substantially equivalent charge) and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He lost at the Fifth Circuit appeals level and is hoping that the Supreme Court will, in another case it may consider, overturn the feds right to regulate machineguns. Mike McNulty is the chief researcher and motivator behind the movie WACO:THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. End... Carol Moore cmoore@capaccess.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Olmstead v. U.S. case McVeigh read from Date: 22 Aug 1997 07:10:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Olmstead v. U.S. (with McInnnis v. U.S.), 227 U.S. 438 (1928) http://www.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=277&invol=438 Mr. Justice BRANDEIS (dissenting). The defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). Before any of the persons now charged had been arrested or indicted, the telephones by means of which they habitually communicated with one another and with others had been tapped by federal officers. To this end, a lineman of long experience in wire tapping was employed, on behalf of the government and at its expense. He tapped eight telephones, some in the homes of the persons charged, some in their offices. Acting on behalf of the government and in their official capacity, at least six other prohibition agents listened over the tapped wires and reported the messages taken. Their operations extended over a period of nearly five months. The typewritten record of the notes of conversations overheard occupies 775 typewritten pages. By objections seasonably made and persistently renewed, the defendants objected to the admission of the evidence obtained by wire tapping, on the ground that the government's wire tapping constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the use as evidence of the conversations overheard compelled the defendants to be witnesses against themselves, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The government makes no attempt to defend the methods employed by its officers. Indeed, it concedes [277 U.S. 438, 472] that, if wire tapping can be deemed a search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment, such wire tapping as was practiced in the case at bar was an unreasonable search and seizure, and that the evidence thus obtained was inadmissible. But it relies on the language of the amendment, and it claims that the protection given thereby cannot properly be held to include a telephone conversation. 'We must never forget,' said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 4 L. Ed. 579, 'that it is a Constitution we are expounding.' Since then this court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of that instrument, over objects of which the fathers could not have dreamed. See Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U.S. 1, 9; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135, 39 S. Ct. 502; Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, 250 U.S. 163, 39 S. Ct. 507, 4 A. L. R. 1623; Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 45 S. Ct. 345, 37 A. L. R. 1407. We have likewise held that general limitations on the powers of government, like those embodied in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, do not forbid the United States or the states from meeting modern conditions by regulations which 'a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.' Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 387, 47 S. Ct. 114, 118 (71 L. Ed. 303); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S. Ct. 584, 71 L. 1000. Clauses guaranteeing to the individual protection against specific abuses of power, must have a similar capacity of adaptation to a changing world. It was with reference to such a clause that this court said in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373, 30 S. Ct. 544, 551 (54 L. Ed. 793, 19 Ann. Cas. 705): 'Legislation, both statutory and constitutional, is enacted, it is true, from an experience of evils, but its general language should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions [277 U.S. 438, 473] and purposes. Therefore a principal to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of Constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, 'designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.' The future is their care and provision for events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophecy can be made. In the application of a Constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been but of what may be. Under any other rule a Constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have little value and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas. Rights declared in words might be lost in reality.' When the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were adopted, 'the form that evil had theretofore taken' had been necessarily simple. Force and violence were then the only means known to man by which a government could directly effect self-incrimination. It could compel the individual to testify-a compulsion effected, if need be, by torture. It could secure possession of his papers and other articles incident to his private life-a seizure effected, if need be, by breaking and entry. Protection against such invasion of 'the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life' was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 6 S. Ct. 524. But 'time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.' Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. [277 U.S. 438, 474] Moreover, 'in the application of a Constitution, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be.' The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. 'That places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer' was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these. 1 To Lord Camden a far slighter intrusion seemed 'subversive of all the comforts of society.' 2 Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security? A sufficient answer is found in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627-630, 6 S. Ct. 524, a case that will be remembered as long as civil liberty lives in the United States. This court there reviewed the history that lay behind the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. We said with reference to Lord Camden's judgment in Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials, 1030: 'The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case there before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employe of the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal se- [277 U.S. 438, 475] curity, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense-it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's judgment. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence of a crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other.'3 In Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, it was held that a sealed letter intrusted to the mail is protected by the amendments. The mail is a public service furnished by the government. The telephone is a public service furnished by its authority. There is, in essence, no difference between the sealed letter and the private telephone message. As Judge Rudkin said below: 'True, the one is visible, the other invisible; the one is tangible, the other intangible; the one is sealed, and the other unsealed; but these are distinctions without a difference.' The evil incident to invasion of the privacy of the telephone is far greater than that involved in tampering with the mails. Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all con- [277 U.S. 438, 476] versations between them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping. Time and again this court, in giving effect to the principle underlying the Fourth Amendment, has refused to place an unduly literal construction upon it. This was notably illustrated in the Boyd Case itself. Taking language in its ordinary meaning, there is no 'search' or 'seizure' when a defendant is required to produce a document in the orderly process of a court's procedure. 'The right of the people of be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,' would not be violated, under any ordinary construction of language, by compelling obedience to a subpoena. But this court holds the evidence inadmissible simply because the information leading to the issue of the subpoena has been unlawfully secured. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S. Ct. 182. Literally, there is no 'search' or 'seizure' when a friendly visitor abstracts papers from an office; yet we held in Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S. Ct. 261, that evidence so obtained could not be used. No court which looked at the words of the amendment rather than at its underlying purpose would hold, as this court did in Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733, that its protection extended to letters in the mails. The provision against self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment has been given an equally broad construction. The language is: 'No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' Yet we have held not only that the [277 U.S. 438, 477] protection of the amendment extends to a witness before a grand jury, although he has not been charged with crime (Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562, 586 S., 12 S. Ct. 195), but that: 'It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.' McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17 (69 L. Ed. 158). The narrow language of the Amendment has been consistently construed in the light of its object, 'to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime. The privilege is limited to criminal matters, but it is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.' Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra, page 562 (12 S. Ct. 198). Decisions of this court applying the principle of the Boyd Case have settled these things. Unjustified search and seizure violates the Fourth Amendment, whatever the character of the paper;4 whether the paper when taken by the federal officers was in the home,5 in an office,6 or elsewhere;7 whether the taking was effected by force,8 by [277 U.S. 438, 478] fraud,9 or in the orderly process of a court's procedure. 10 From these decisions, it follows necessarily that the amendment is violated by the officer's reading the paper without a physical seizure, without his even touching it, and that use, in any criminal proceeding, of the contents of the paper so examined-as where they are testified to by a federal officer who thus saw the document or where, through knowledge so obtained, a copy has been procured elsewhere11-any such use constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The protection guaranteed by the amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect, that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence [277 U.S. 438, 479] in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth. Applying to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments the established rule of construction, the defendants' objections to the evidence obtained by wire tapping must, in my opinion, be sustained. It is, of course, immaterial where the physical connection with the telephone wires leading into the defendants' premises was made. And it is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. 12 Independently of the constitutional question, I am of opinion that the judgment should be reversed. By the laws of Washington, wire tapping is a crime. 13 Pierce's [277 U.S. 438, 480] Code 1921, 8976(18). To prove its case, the government was obliged to lay bare the crimes committed by its officers on its behalf. A federal court should not permit such a prosecution to continue. Compare Harkin v. Brundage (No. 117) 276 U.S. 36, 48 S. Ct. 268, decided February 20, 1928 [277 U.S. 438, 481] The situation in the case at bar differs widely from that presented in Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S. Ct. 574, 13 A. L. R. 1159. There only a single lot of papers was involved. They had been obtained by a private detective while acting on behalf of a private party, without the knowledge of any federal official, long before any one had thought of instituting a [277 U.S. 438, 482] federal prosecution. Here the evidence obtained by crime was obtained at the government's expense, by its officers, while acting on its behalf; the officers who committed these crimes are the same officers who were charged with the enforcement of the Prohibition Act; the crimes of these officers were committed for the purpose of securing evidence with which to obtain an indictment and to secure a conviction. The evidence so obtained constitutes the warp and woof of the government's case. The aggregate of the government evidence occupies 306 pages of the printed record. More than 210 of them are filled by recitals of the details of the wire tapping and of facts ascertained thereby. 14 There is literally no other evidence of guilt on the part of some of the defendants except that illegally obtained by these officers. As to nearly all the defendants (except those who admitted guilt), the evidence relied upon to secure a conviction consisted mainly of that which these officers had so obtained by violating the state law. As Judge Rudkin said below (19 F.(2d) 842): 'Here we are concerned with neither eavesdroppers nor thieves. Nor are we concerned with the acts of private individuals. ... We are concerned only with the acts of federal agents, whose powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution of the United States.' The Eighteenth Amendment has not in terms empowered Congress to authorize any one to violate the criminal laws of a state. And Congress has never purported to do so. Compare Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 46 S. Ct. 185. The terms of appointment of federal prohibition agents do not purport to confer upon them authority to violate any criminal law. Their superior officer, the Secretary of the Treasury, has not instructed them to commit [277 U.S. 438, 483] crime on behalf of the United States. It may be assumed that the Attorney General of the United States did not give any such instruction. 15 When these unlawful acts were committed they were crimes only of the officers individually. The government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers' crimes. Compare the Paquete Habana, 189 U.S. 453, 465, 23 S. Ct. 593; O'Reilly de Camara v. Brooke, 209 U.S. 45, 52, 28 S. Ct. 439; Dodge v. United States, 272 U.S. 530, 532, 47 S. Ct. 191; Gambino v. United States, 275 U.S. 310, 48 S. Ct. 137, and if this court should permit the government, by means of its officers' crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification. If so, the government itself would become a lawbreaker. Will this court, by sustaining the judgment below, sanction such conduct on the part of the executive? The governing principle has long been settled. It is that a court will not redress a wrong when he who invokes its aid has unclean hands. 16 The maxim of unclean hands comes [277 U.S. 438, 484] from courts of equity. 17 But the principle prevails also in courts of law. Its common application is in civil actions between private parties. Where the government is the actor, the reasons for applying it are even more persuasive. Where the remedies invoked are those of the criminal law, the reasons are compelling. 18 The door of a court is not barred because the plaintiff has committed a crime. The confirmed criminal is as much entitled to redress as his most virtuous fellow citizen; no record of crime, however long, makes one an outlaw. The court's aid is denied only when he who seeks it has violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress. 19 Then aid is denied despite the defendant's wrong. It is denied in order to maintain respect for law; in order to promote confidence in the administration of justice; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination. The rule is one, not of action, but of inaction. It is sometimes [277 U.S. 438, 485] spoken of as a rule of substantive law. But it extends to matters of procedure as well. 20 A defense may be waived. It is waived when not pleaded. But the objection that the plaintiff comes with unclean hands will be taken by the court itself. 21 It will be taken despite the wish to the contrary of all the parties to the litigation. The court protects itself. Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: >>> Confiscation Stories Wanted Date: 22 Aug 1997 08:58:04 -0700 Ahem, your attention please: The Idaho Observer is looking for stories of people who have had property or possessions confiscated by the "authorities," be they federal or local. Ideally, we'd like personal anecdotes, but we're also interested in 2nd hand stories if you know someone it happened to. Thank you! - Monte http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: The Founders and "democracy" Date: 22 Aug 1997 08:53:26 -0700 S, [...] I recall reading a booklet put out for soldiers in the U.S. Army (WWII vintage) which . . . [...] I wonder, if that booklet has been archived somewhere? It would be worth a fortnight of lost sleep trying to locate such a thing, and stuff it right up the noses of some politicians we all know! ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Bill Of Attainder Project (fwd) Date: 22 Aug 1997 09:07:06 -0700 Paul, [...] We are happy to announce that Oklahoma may have this nation's first real "3rd party" candidate running for office. [...] Well, hot damn! As soon as he gets validated as the candidate, make sure that his campaign contribution address gets published, as I am going to max-out my efforts to see to it that he has a better than 50/50 chance! ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Ruby Ridge Indictments Articles Date: 23 Aug 1997 11:19:53 -0500 Included below are portions of articles from USENET on the recent indictments in Idaho related to the Ruby Ridge siege. The articles are in HTML; sorry, but I don't have an HTML-to-Text converter handy (and didn't want to hack one just for one post). E-mail me off-line if you want the entire article(s). --Bob _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| ----- Begin Included Text ----- 220 3162 article X-HTML: Xref: uunet biz.clarinet.webnews.top:3162 biz.clarinet.webnews.usa:21635 State to File Charges in Ruby Ridge Case Logo [Aug 21] ClariNet story NEWS-RUBYRIDGE from Reuters

State to File Charges in Ruby Ridge Case

Copyright 1997 by Reuters / Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:10:46 PDT

SPOKANE, Wash. (Reuter) - Idaho state prosecutors plan to file charges Thursday against two people, including an FBI sniper, in connection with the 1992 shootout at Ruby Ridge that left three people dead, according to a newspaper report.

The charges would come five years to the day after the shooting of a federal agent sparked a nine-day standoff at the cabin of white separatist Randy Weaver and a week after the Justice Department closed the book on the case, declining to prosecute any more FBI agents.

The Spokane Spokesman-Review, citing law enforcement sources, said Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury would charge Weaver's friend Kevin Harris with first-degree murder for the death of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan.

She also plans to charge FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi with manslaughter in the death of Weaver's wife, Vicki, the newspaper said.

Woodbury could not be reached for comment, but an official in her office said a news conference would be held Thursday, the newspaper said.

Weaver and Harris previously were tried and acquitted on federal charges in the case, but the U.S. Constitution's ban on double jeopardy does not prevent state charges from being brought.

Any manslaughter charges would have to be filed this week because of a five-year statute of limitations, while there is no such limitation on murder charges. [SNIP....]


Want to tell us what you think about the ClariNews? Please feel free to email us your comments.
bottom [Aug 21] Icon [Aug 21] ----- End Included Text ----- ----- Begin Included Text ----- 220 21655 article X-HTML: Xref: uunet biz.clarinet.webnews.usa:21655 FBI Chief 'Disappointed' at Ruby Ridge Charge Logo [Aug 21] ClariNet story POLITICS-RUBYRIDGE from Reuters

FBI Chief 'Disappointed' at Ruby Ridge Charge

Copyright 1997 by Reuters / Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:21:04 PDT

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - FBI Director Louis Freeh said Thursday he was ``deeply disappointed'' that Idaho state prosecutors decided to charge an FBI agent with involuntary manslaughter related to the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootout.

Idaho state prosecutors charged FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi in the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife Vicki.

``Without question, the death of Vicki Weaver, like the death of Deputy U.S. Marshal Bill Degan, was a terrible tragedy,'' Freeh said in a statement. ``The FBI has expressed its regret for Vicki Weaver's tragic death,'' he added.

Horiuchi's job on the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team involved making ``split-second'' decisions, Freeh said.

The Justice Department will continue to provide legal representation at government expense for Horiuchi. ``He is an outstanding agent and continues to have my total support and confidence,'' Freeh said.

Adam Hoffinger, counsel for Horiuchi, said: ``We are profoundly distressed and troubled by the Boundary County prosecutor's decision to charge Lon Horiuchi.''

Hoffinger added, ``particularly in the face of Mr. Horiuchi's exoneration last week after an exhaustive, two-year investigation'' by the Justice Department.

On Friday, the Justice Department said it would not prosecute any more FBI agents over the Ruby Ridge shooting.

The Justice Department said Horiuchi was charged under Idaho's involuntary statute, which makes it a crime to use a firearm recklessly, carelessly, or negligently. [SNIP....]


Want to tell us what you think about the ClariNews? Please feel free to email us your comments.
bottom [Aug 21] Icon [Aug 21] ----- End Included Text ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Ruby Ridge Indictments Articles Date: 23 Aug 1997 12:01:16 PDT roc@mail.xmission.com wrote : >Included below are portions of articles from USENET on the recent indictments >in Idaho related to the Ruby Ridge siege. The articles are in HTML; sorry, >but I don't have an HTML-to-Text converter handy (and didn't want to hack one >just for one post). E-mail me off-line if you want the entire article(s). > >--Bob > Most of the time if one simply does a copy and paste all the HTML <> irritations disappear. On my NETSCAPE going to the edit menu and clicking on SELECT-ALL and then clcking on COPY and then pasting the text down in what ever document is to be mailed gets rid of HTML. Unfortunately it does not get rid of the desire of many www pages to only post on the far right *phsically* on the page so that when one does the paste there is nothing but inches of blank space on the left side of the document and the text is off beyond the right edge...... Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: The Lonster Mash (fwd) Date: 24 Aug 1997 10:27:23 -0400 (EDT) Please understand that, in composing the satirical lyrics below, I am not attempting to trivialize the fact that three people lost their lives needlessly on a ridge in Boundary County, Idaho in 1992. Far from it. As an Idaho prosecutor begins to take a serious look at this tragedy, I felt compelled to pen "The Lonster Mash" in the hope that it might embarrass the defendant in this case who is a federal LEO and perhaps convince him that showing up in court, as opposed to fleeing to Beijing, is the right thing to do. No one is above the law, not even one of Louie Louie's HRT snipers. Best regards, Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net -------Forwarded Message--------------------------------------------------- THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THE LONSTER MASH Lon was fiddlin' with his trigger one fateful day, When his finger got itchy, as some would say, The Lonster's irritation, why it began to rise, And suddenly, to the Weavers' surprise, He did the mash, He did the Lonster mash, (The Lonster mash), There was a bang and a flash, (He did the mash), He did the Lonster mash (wa-hoo), From Freeh's laboratories down at Quantico (wa-hoo), Where the Lonster is now working as "Dr. No", (wa-hoo), Reno's spin doctors came from their Justice abodes, (wa-hoo), To catch a jolt from Carville's electrodes, (They did the mash), They did the Lonster mash, (The Lonster mash), They denied his gun's flash, (They did the mash), They did the Lonster mash, (wa-hoo), Clinton's favorite dates were having fun, (ba-ba-shoop, wa-hoo), The party had just begun, (ba-ba-shoop, wa-hoo), The guests included Gennifer Flowers, (ba-ba-shoop, wa-hoo), Charlie Trie and Wang Jun, (wa-hoo), The office was rockin', Freeh was diggin' the sounds, (wa-hoo), Dick Morris in chains, backed by Carville's hounds, (wa-hoo, wa-hoo), Clinton's bimbos-to-be-banged were about to arrive, (wa-hoo), They're that vocal group: The Paula Jones Five, (They played the mash), They played the Lonster mash, (The Lonster mash), They denied his gun's flash, (They played the mash), They played the Lonster mash, (wa-hoo), From the Oval Office, Willie's voice did ring, (wa-hoo), Seems he was troubled by just one thing, (wa-hoo), He looked at McCurry, shook his fist and said, (wa-hoo), Who's upset because three people are dead? (It's now the mash), It's now the Lonster mash, (The Lonster mash), And it's a White House smash, (It's now the mash), It's now the Lonster mash, (The Lonster mash), They denied his gun's flash, (It's now the mash), It's now the Lonster mash, (wa-hoo), Now everything's cool, Lon is bound for Beijing, (wa-hoo), No Idaho jury will make the Lonster sing, (wa-hoo, wa-hoo), For wrong-thinking types, Lon's mash is meant, too, (wa-hoo), Don't stand near a door or the Lonster'll zap you, (And he can mash), Yes, he can Lonster mash, (The Lonster mash), He'll deny his gun's flash, (But he can mash), Yes, he can Lonster mash, (wa-hoo), Mash good, (Lonster mash, wa-hoo), Easy Lonster, you impetuous young agent, (Lonster mash, wa-hoo), Easy Lonster, you impetuous young boy, (Lonster mash, wa-hoo), Uuurrrhhh, (Lonster mash, wa-hoo), The Lonster Mash! THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: The Lonster Mash (fwd) Date: 24 Aug 1997 15:08:17 -0600 Chris, this is the best one yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: The Lonster Mash (fwd) Date: 24 Aug 1997 18:06:15 -0400 (EDT) At 03:08 PM 8/24/97 -0600, Da Blue Wolf wrote: >Chris, this is the best one yet. > > > > That's why I always look forward to his posts, keeps me rooling on the floor. 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: Subject: Drug raid and strip search of wrong house and Women Date: 25 Aug 1997 12:04:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Drug chief is replaced after raid Wrong home, people searched in Terrell 08/25/97 By Charles Ornstein / The Dallas Morning News The Kaufman County sheriff, reacting to a botched drug raid last week in which deputies stormed the wrong Terrell house and strip-searched two innocent women, has replaced his head narcotics investigator and vowed Sunday to take other action to prevent such mistakes. Sheriff Robert Harris said Sunday that Capt. George Pelphrey will no longer head the department's narcotics investigations. The sheriff said he hasn't decided whether he will further discipline Capt. Pelphrey, a 15-year department veteran, for approving last Tuesday's raid of June Nixon's house on Sue Lane. Ms. Nixon, 57, and her 28-year-old daughter, Melissa Cheek, were watching television about 7 p.m. Tuesday when 15 Kaufman County deputies burst through the front door. They handcuffed both women, and then a female deputy strip-searched them in front of Ms. Cheek's 6-year-old daughter, Sheriff Harris said. Capt. Pelphrey, who heads the criminal investigation division, could not be reached for comment Sunday. But the sheriff defended the officer's record. "He's very well-informed, he's very well-trained and he's done an outstanding job over the years," Sheriff Harris said. "This is just one of those things that we have to investigate to see if maybe he didn't do everything he should have done. We just don't know that." The real drug suspects, who live down the street, watched the raid from their front lawn, Sheriff Harris said, and laughed as deputies passed by. Those suspects had not been arrested by Sunday, but the sheriff said they would be. The deputies realized that they had entered the wrong home when they did not find weapons or drugs on Ms. Nixon or Ms. Cheek, the sheriff said. Officers offered to fix the front door, he said, but Ms. Nixon, a schoolteacher, turned down the help. Ms. Nixon and her daughter would not speak to reporters Sunday. Their lawyer, Hunt Bonneau of Dallas, said they were considering a lawsuit against Kaufman County. "They're your all-American family," Mr. Bonneau said. "That's what's scary about this. You elect your officials and you pay those guys to protect you. And those are the very people that are coming in and intruding on you. We're all kind of in awe at this point." Sheriff Harris said he will finish an investigation into the incident Monday or Tuesday. He won't decide on any action against Capt. Pelphrey until then, he said. No other officers are under investigation, the sheriff said. The sheriff also said he would now personally review any search warrants requested by his officers. He said he hasn't done that in the past. "I will take a tremendously active role in reviewing the investigative portion before the execution of any search warrant is approved," Sheriff Harris said. "I want to make sure that I am hitting the right premises." In last Tuesday's raid, the sheriff said, "I know we hit the wrong house and there was some reason for it." Investigators are supposed to check addresses at the post office, confirm them with water and electric records and then conduct surveillance at the prospective home, he said. Some of those things apparently were not done, Sheriff Harris said. Mr. Bonneau said his clients' civil rights were violated. He said he is waiting on the results of his own investigation this week before deciding whether to file a lawsuit against the county. He said he doesn't understand how the mistake could have happened. "With all the access to information that the government has, this type of thing shouldn't happen unless there is a lack of due diligence there," Mr. Bonneau said Sunday. "Our task is to make sure where the breakdown was - who was lazy - and to make sure it doesn't happen again." The lawyer said Ms. Nixon has lived in the house for more than 30 years. Neither she nor her daughter has a criminal history, Mr. Bonneau said. The Kaufman County deputies did not show a search warrant when they entered the house, he said, and were "pretty invasive" during the strip search. Ms. Nixon and Ms. Cheek repeatedly told tactical officers that they were law-abiding citizens, Sheriff Harris said. But because investigators hear that all the time from true criminals, they continued with their search, he said. "We've arrested people 70 years old, who look like your typical grandmother, for cooking drug labs," he said. "The physical appearance of an individual doesn't always denote if they are narcotics traffickers." Kaufman County Commissioner Rod Kinkaid said he was troubled by the incident. "It appears to be something very serious and something that we need to make sure never happens again," said Mr. Kinkaid, who has served for more than two years. "I'd like to know what really did go wrong and what the details are so corrective action can be taken." Several searches by Kaufman County sheriff's deputies - one drug raid and one arrest involving underage drinking - have drawn attention in recent years. In 1989, Sheriff Harris publicly apologized to two families for a raid that turned up no drugs but left two houses damaged and family members shaken. Three years ago, county officials agreed to revise some rules on the handling of prisoners after parents of Highland Park High School students sued the county. The parents contended that officers illegally entered private property and raided a teenage party to raise money in fines. The county paid $65,000 in legal costs, under terms of the settlement. Sheriff Harris said his department is competent and frequently trains rural sheriff's deputies in other Texas counties. During his 12 years as sheriff, his office has confiscated more than $40 million in illegal drugs, he said. Deputies will not stop going after drug targets following this incident, the sheriff said. "We're one of the best trained sheriff's departments in Texas," he said. "Our officers work hard. They have a large work load. If you make one mistake, you are certainly going to be criticized for it, much more than the praise you get for all the good things you do." As for the actual drug suspects on Ms. Nixon's street, Sheriff Harris said: "We're not going to take them off the list." © 1997 The Dallas Morning News ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: Drug raid and strip search of wrong ouse and Women Date: 25 Aug 1997 13:36:46 -0500 (CDT) They filed a law suit today, I hope they hire the lawyer Windle Turley the guy who just got the Catholic queers in Dallas. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: Drug raid and strip search of wrong ouse and Women Date: 25 Aug 1997 20:50:40 -0600 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > They filed a law suit today, I hope they hire the lawyer Windle Turley > the > guy who just got the Catholic queers in Dallas. > Paul LOL. If they get compensated at the same rate they'll end up owning Kaufman County and three players to be named later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Ruby Ridge Trial & "Lonster Mash" Watchers Date: 26 Aug 1997 17:05:22 -0400 (EDT) Check out Thomas Oliphant's oh-so-outrageous op-ed entitled "Ruby Ridge's Shameful Turn" on page A13 of the 08/26/97 BOSTON GLOBE. What a "beaut" of a column. Go to http://www.boston.com/globe to find it. Check out Wasserman's contemptible cartoon on page A12 and the two (hysterically) anti-gun letters to the editor, while you are at it. I would retrieve and repost to noban and roc, but no can do with this machine. Could someone oblige, at least with Oliphant's op-ed and the two letters to the editor? Regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: L&J: President Jethro, Meet Adolf Hitler (fwd) Date: 26 Aug 1997 17:31:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com Clinton's Determined Drive For More Power Michael Reagan's Monthly Monitor August 1997 Michael Reagan In the last five years, since William Jefferson Clinton has been in office, he has made several clear attempts to seize greater and greater control over the American governent and the lives of the people. He has made a number of bold moves, trying to get the American people to follow him blindly. Although the tactics he has used all worked well in early 1933 in convincing the German people that Adolph Hitler cared about them and would lead them to glory, they haven't been terribily successful for Bill Clinton, in spite of his having been reelected in 1996. In Mein Kampf, Hitler outlined the psychological and political techniques for a successful political takeover: (1) Create a mass movement over an issue; (2) Master the art of propaganda among the masses: and (3) Use spiritual and physical terror, particularlly on the bourgeoisie. Soon after his inauguration, in February 1993, Clinton approved a military-style assault on a quiet religious group in a rural area outside Waco, Texas, that partially supported itself with a licensed gun dealership business. This isolated group, we were told, was such a threat to our society that a raid of major proportions had to be mounted to protect us. Of course, with Adolph Hitler the group that was a threat to society was the Jews whom, he believed, afflicted the German nation with exactly the same kind of sexual immorality David Koresh and the Branch Davidians were charged with in 1995. As it turned out, however, the German people of the 1930's were more gullible than the American people of the 1990's. While many Americans still believe the now-disproved stories about David Koresh (child abuse and secret plans to attack others) most Americans just didn't swallow it. The charges that were made by the government just did not hold up in courts of law. Clinton did manage to win one critically important battle in enlarging presidential power. His 1993 record increases in taxes and spending was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress by one vote. It was close, but of course money buys power in Washington. Adolph Hitler's National Socialism was also designed to solve all the people's problems by "exercising control over national, state, and local government" by placing the professions, science, music, education, and health care under the control of the central government and its leader. Clinton's next major effort to convince us all we should follow him was the Health Care Reform bill, which would have socialized one seventh of our economy. In Hillary Clinton's 1994 speeches supported by caravans of her followers, the public was treated to a bombardment of "health care crisis" talks urging support for the centralized control of medicine from Washington. But in casting Bill Clinton in the starring role of Fearless Leader, that didn't fly either. In spite of having a majority of Democrats in Congress, in the end the public, in the words of Rep. Philip Crane (Republican) of Illinois, "didn't like the idea of the government injecting itself into the health care system. They were understandably wary of any plan that would put the government between them and their doctors." Clinton's third try at being seen as the People's Hero, ready with instant answers in taking care of them was with the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. On 'Sixty Minutes,' a scant four days after the bombing, Mike Wallace asked the President: "Are we Americans going to have to give up some of our liberties in order to better combat terrorism, both from overseas and here?" (Already, in that brief period of time, the President was proposing a wide-sweeping legislative package.) "We have to be willing to see serious threats to our liberties properly investigated. I have sent a counter-terrorism bill --- a piece of legislation --- to Ca pitol Hill, which I hope Congress will pass. "And after consultation with the Attorney General, the FBI Director and others, I'm going to ask them to give the FBI and others more power to crack these terrorist networks, both domestic and foreign." Of course! More power is needed in the hands of the illustrious leader to address the people's problems. Anti-terrorism legislation that amended the Espionage Act of 1917 (Title 18 of the United States Code) and parts of existing Internal Security Acts was quickly brought to the floor. Senator Bob Dole's Senate Bill 735, with amendments which basically added the Clinton Ominibus Anti-Terrorism Bill introduced by Sen. Joseph Biden, was passed in the Senate in less than two months. It was brought to the floor without hearings or a committee report. And it included some of history's worst attacks on individual liberty. The President was given almost unlimited power to determine who was a "terrorist." The President could, under the bill, halt any funds going to any group which he, and he alone, designated as a "terrorist" organization. There was no definition of a terrorist group. During that period of time, and afterwards, President Clinton and other liberals often spoke of the pro-life "terrorists" who blocked abortion clinics. Had that bill become law, how long would it have been before any person collecting funds for a pro-life organization could be stopped for collecting funds for a "terrorist" group? The bill introduced in the House by conservative Rep. Henry Hyde was, if anything, worse than S 735. It sought imprisonment for any person who "gives material support" to any person who violates any of 17 different sections of the Criminal Code. "Material support" was defined as "currency, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communication equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation and other physical acts." Under that clause, had it become law, if you rented a room to Timothy McVeigh at some point in time, you could be imprisoned, whether you knew who he was and what he was doing or not. The "power" which President Clinton requested, and which was in the original bill, included changing the Posse Comitatus Law which was passed in 1878 to stop US Army troops from acting as a "posse" in enforcing domestic law. The law is based on the inherent danger in having military personnel, who are trained to operate under circumstances in which constitutional freedoms do not apply, enforce law within the United States, where such freedoms must be maintained. Neither S 735 or HR 1710 became law. The unsung hero of this tale is Rep. Bob Barr, a freshman Congressman who, in 1995, rewrote the bill and eliminated most of the provisions that "required Americans to give up their liberty." When the German Reichstag burned on February 27, 1933, suspension of constitutional rights took place by decree on the following day, enabling the Nazis to conduct an effective electoral campaign that gave Hitler control. Had America been using the same political system, and S 735 and had HR 1710 become law, they would have been huge steps towards government by presidential decree. By late 1995, of course, having been thwarted repeatedly in his efforts to drastically increase the power of the presidency and the federal government, Clinton was locked into a power struggle with Newt Gingrich over the Contract with America and the Republicans' determination to balance the budget. Despite the popular myth promoted by American media that the Republicans lost that battle when the govenment shut down, they actually won the Constitutional battle that no one was watching. Newt Gingrich and his followers, intent upon balancing the budget, effectively pulled the plug on Democrat legislative efforts which would have increased central government control over the average American citizen. Had Clinton won these battle --- the Health Care Reform, the passage of the anti-terrorism bills that would have greatly enhanced the President's power as well as his budget for 1996 and 1997 --- we would be much further down the road to government-by-edict than we are today. In 1996, having lost much of the public money which the Democrats have used traditionally to fund their reelections, campaign fund-raising became the all-consuming issue for Bill Clinton. Invariably, power follows the money. Since September of last year, when Clinton seized control of 1.7 million acres of Utah land as a "monument," he appears to have moved into a different mode in his drive for power. Having failed to whip up a really enthusiastic mass movement behind him, he appears to be seizing power simply by assuming it through regulatory edicts, Executive Orders, stonewalling Congressional investigators, and even court orders. This is not a totally new tactic. It too was one of Adolph Hitler's favorite methods. This is the technique used to occupy the Rhineland in 1936 in violation of the Treaty of Locarno. He simply announced he would reoccupy the Rhrineland. To confuse British and American opinion, he said the occupation was "symbolic." Actually, he was testing the waters. Winston Churchill wrote: "If the French Government had mobilized the French Army, with nearly a hundred divisions, and its Air Force (then still falsely believed to be the strongest in Europe), there is no doubt that Hitler would have been compelled by his own General Staff to withdraw, and a check would have been given to his pretensions which might will have proved fatal to his rule." Neither the British nor the French reacted. Hitler stayed in the Rhrineland, having by his bold actions convinced many of his own doubting military men of his "genius." Had his enemies displayed more courage, his "genius' would have been very short-lived. As things now stand, Bill Clinton has successfully implemented two of the three "psychological and political techniques for a successful political movement": he has mastered the art of propaganda among the masses and instituted the use of spiritual and physical terror in his battles with the Republicans. He has not succeeded in creating a mass movement with hordes of devoted followers. While he has managed to gain considerable control over much of the media, he has not managed to silence radio talk shows, the Internet, scores of newsletters or even one of his most embarrassing opponents --- Paula Jones. In the coming years we can expect even more determined efforts to gain control over the minds of the masses and the adoption of new political values --- including abandonment of our Constitutional balance of power, our current standards of living and our traditional notions of individual liberty. We will be pushed to accept not only national, but INTERNATIONAL control of our lifestyle, our property, our family size, the education and religious training of our children, and, ultimately, our personal liberty to save the world from some nebulous human-caused environmentally cosmic disaster. To counteract these efforts, every American who wants to preserve the protections of the Constitution must understand what the Constitution says. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: Jacques Tucker Subject: Oliphant: Boston Globe 8/26 Date: 27 Aug 1997 23:04:11 -0500 Jacq' sez: Well, here's the real thing: Ruby Ridge's shameful turn=20 By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist, 08/26/97=20 WASHINGTON What should have been a promising step in Idaho has taken a detour down an ugly path through the country's media culture.=20 The path is called ''moral equivalence,'' an effort to place situations that are as different as night and day on a par with each other. In this case it is called Ruby Ridge, and the path stretches from a county prosecutor's office out west to the director's office at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.=20 Out west, moral equivalence was a packaging move by the local DA, who unveiled two indictments in the 1992 case on the same day in a lame effort to suggest symmetry.=20 One charged a drifter-accomplice of violent kook Randy Weaver with first degree murder in the death of US Marshal William Degan, part of a team sent to do reconnaisance on the federal fugitive's property five years to the day before the indictment was announced. The other charged FBI agent Lou Horiuchi with involuntary manslaughter in the death of Weaver's wife, Vicki, in a prosecutorial reach of epic proportions. In an assault on the Weaver cabin the day after Degan's murder, she was shot as she held the door open for her armed, retreating confederates. The charge was announced one day before the five-year statute of limitations on it would have expired.=20 How neat! Too neat.=20 Back here, moral equivalence took the form of a disgusting statement from FBI Director Louis Freeh. In addition to forthrightly standing by his agent, Freeh, the politician, couldn't do the same for Degan.=20 In a sentence that should go into the moral equivalence Hall of Shame, Freeh managed to lump the late Marshal Degan and Vicki Weaver together as bankrupt pols have been doing for five years, calling their deaths ''tragic.'' The issue is not the worth of individuals, most of us having been raised in the belief that all life is precious. The issue is about situations and conduct.=20 It is one thing for an accomplice to be shot accidentally while assisting armed men on the run and quite another for a law enforcement official to be murdered in the performance of his duty. To call them both ''tragic'' is to hide behind the lowest common denominator in order to avoid the obvious distinction, the very essence of moral equivalence.=20 The press, as usual, fell for the stunt. The novelty of a local prosecutor trying to stretch manslaughter law beyond its breaking point easily topped a capital murder case in a cop killing that was based on new evidence. Such is the meaning of ''news value'' in an increasingly tabloid culture.=20 Denise Woodbury, the prosecutor of tiny Boundary County, clearly realized this. At a minimum the packaging of the two charges in the same press release shows that media politics festers everywhere in the wired age.=20 Out there, the situation is at least understandable. The post-incident hysteria was so bad that Weaver and his buddy, Kevin Harris, were acquitted on all serious charges in federal court, Degan's murder included, in an atmosphere that reeked of the jury riots in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases.=20 In this one, however, the second trial option was in state court. As it happened, Woodbury said that there is new evidence in the form of a bullet, whose location shows that Degan and two colleagues were pursued by Harris and Weaver's gun-toting son (killed in the ensuing exchange of shots) for more than 1,000 feet to a point more than a mile off the Weaver property.=20 The new evidence, like all the old evidence, corroborates the accounts of the other two marshals - Arthur Roderick and Larry Cooper - and keeps the case exactly what it has always been, a murder. Nothing, including what happened the next day, should ever be permitted to obscure that hideous fact.=20 But Woodbury has tried, to her discredit, by tossing agent Horiuchi into the package.=20 It is a fact that a post-incident report by the Justice Department recommended that the sharpshooter's conduct be considered for possible prosecution. The recommendation was overruled because the only relevant law - a civil rights violation - requires a showing of intent.=20 But it is also a fact that state law allows for an involuntary manslaughter charge for the negligent discharge of a firearm. The problem is that this case will involve the micro-management of each shot in an exchange between federal law enforcement agents and armed extremists who had already killed once.=20 Freeh's stand behind his agent, however, is undercut by his cavalier treatment of Bill Degan and comes off as far more bureaucratic than principled.=20 Now that the higher-ups in the FBI who covered up the paperwork behind the illegal order to shoot to kill any male on the property that day have been let off the hook, the citizens of Northern Idaho are about to get a second chance.=20 Their duty is to distinguish between two events by deciding each on its factual and legal merits. The moral equation of murder with misconduct, after five long years, must finally end.=20 Thomas Oliphant is a Globe columnist.=20 This story ran on page A12 of the Boston Globe on 08/26/97.=20 =A9 Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company.=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Letters to Boston Globe 8/26 Date: 27 Aug 1997 23:18:27 -0500 Jacq' sez: OK, Chris. Here're the two "hysterical" Letters to the Editor from the Boston Globe today: The absurdity of our gun-toting mentality=20 By Richard Payne Sudbury, 08/26/97=20 The absurdity of the gun-toting mentality in the Granite State and elsewhere is well-illustrated by the shooting of several policemen and others last week (''Mourners pay tribute to slain troopers,'' Metro, Aug. 24).=20 It is said that Vickie Bunnell, one of the people killed, had been carrying a gun since being threatened by Carl C. Drega, but one wonders what good that was supposed to do. Did she perhaps think Drega might give her a chance to draw, or was she planning a preemptive strike?=20 The fact of the matter is that the gun she carried in her purse provided absolutely no protection against Drega. In fact, statistically, the gun was more likely to have been used against Bunnell or someone she knew. New Hampshire State Police Superintendent John J. Barthelmes asks, ''Why did it have to happen here?'' The answer is obvious: Because there are guns everywhere! There is a clear statistical relationship between the number of guns in circulation and the number of people getting shot. What is it that New Hampshire residents are afraid of that makes them feel the need to be armed to the teeth?=20 And if they need guns, why not also flame throwers, armored cars, and maybe a tank or two? Guns provide no protection to people who are not unscrupulous enough to use them to advantage, as the sad case of Vickie Bunnell amply demonstrates.=20 The motto of the Granite State could aptly be: ''Live free and quite possibly die as a result.'' This story ran on page A12 of the Boston Globe on 08/26/97.=20 =A9 Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company.=20 Live free of armed madmen=20 By Payman Khodabandehloo Charlestown, 08/26/97=20 Live free or die. Is there any question about what Carl Drega had chosen?=20 We have the audacity to be shocked as increasingly deadly instruments of death and terror are dragged from his smoldering barn. Yet any of his neighbors, with a little resourcefulness, could stock up on the same weapons and explosives and training books in terror.=20 No citizen of other democratic Western countries could come close to acquiring such an arsenal. Anyone even shopping for thousands of armor-piercing bullets, blasting caps, explosive chemicals, gunpowder, or projectile casings for a grenade launcher is likely to be arrested and placed under scrutiny.=20 Oh, but not here, not in the land of the free. Even mention gun control in New Hampshire and you'll be called a pinko, liberal, softy. It is possible for most citizens to acquire most of Drega's arsenal through mail order catalogs or on the Web. Try putting any limits on that and the Second Amendment contingent will be up in arms; pun intended.=20 It is only a matter of time before one of these lunatics on the fringe makes the Oklahoma City bombing look like a walk in the park.=20 And when it does happen, we will again have the audacity to be shocked, yet continue to do nothing to curtail the availability of weapons, explosives and instruments of terror in this country.=20 Let us look for a middle ground where one man's freedom does not intrude on another's right to live without fear of armed madmen.=20 This story ran on page A12 of the Boston Globe on 08/26/97.=20 =A9 Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company.=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Never ... (fwd) Date: 27 Aug 1997 09:16:33 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with something bigger and heavier. -Anonymous Never accept a drink from a urologist. -Erma Bombeck Never say anything on the phone that you wouldn't want your mother to hear at your trial. -Sydney Biddle Barrows, the "Mayflower Madam" Never say "Oops" in the operating room. - Dr. Leo Troy Never comment on a woman's rear end. Never use the words "large" or "size" with "rear end". Never. Avoid the area altogether. Trust me. -Tim Allen Never wear a backward baseball cap to an interview unless applying for the job of umpire. -Dan Zevin Never kick a fresh cow dropping on a hot day. -Harry S. Truman Never thrust your sickle into another's corn. -Publius Syrus Never drive through a small Southern town at 100mph with the local sheriff's drunken 16-year-old daughter on your lap. -Anonymous member of a chain gang Never invoke the gods unless you really want them to appear. It annoys them very much. -G.K. Chesterton Never use while sleeping. -Instruction on Conair hair dryer Never play peekaboo with a child on a long plane trip. There's no end to the game. Finally I grabbed him by the bib and said, "Look, it's always gonna be me!" -Rita Rudner Never murder a man when he's busy committing suicide. -Woodrow Wilson Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room. -Winston Churchill Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. -John Peers Never take a job where winter winds can blow up your pants. -Geraldo Rivera Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, face the facts. -Ruth Gordon Never pick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the barrel. -American adage about antagonizing newspaper editors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Gutter Journalism At Its Very Worst (fwd) Date: 27 Aug 1997 10:36:27 -0400 (EDT) No comment necessary. Read on. PLEASE, be * respectful and polite * if and when expressing outrage to THE BOSTON GLOBE. This media corruption of our state's sacred "Live Free or Die" motto in the wake of the tragic deaths of three police officers, a judge and a news editor is an absolute OUTRAGE! Best regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc:
Well, sports fans, I hit the nail right on the head about three days ago when I predicted that some *** insensitive *** media moron would corrupt our State motto in the wake of the recent tragedies in Colebrook and Epsom. On the editorial page of today's (08/26/97) BOSTON GLOBE, there appears a "Wasserman" cartoon, copyrighted '97 Boston Globe, dist. by L.A. Times Synd. The cartoon shows a white pick-up truck, viewed from the rear, driven by a white male wearing a baseball cap, the gun rack of which pick-up truck contains an AR-15 semi-auto rifle. The rear license plate of the truck reads as follows: New Hampshire E Z GUNS Live Free and Die Underneath this * filth * lie two hysterical letters to the editor entitled "Live Free of Armed Madmen" (written by Payman Khodabandedloo of Charlestown MA) and "The Absurdity Of Our Gun-Toting Mentality" (written by Richard Payne of Sudbury MA.) No "diversity" of viewpoint was presented. No great surprise. Reading Khodabandedloo's and Payne's words made me sense a leftist-Drega-like-quality in their foaming at the mouth tirades. Moving right along to the next page (A12), oh so proper Boston Beacon Street snob columnist Thomas Oliphant pens an op-ed entitled, "Ruby Ridge's Shameful Turn." Oliphant's "piece of work" has to be read to be believed. He is angry that Louis Freeh described Vicki Weaver's and deputy U.S. marshal William Degan's deaths as "tragedies" ... he is outraged that the deaths have been lumped together. I kid you not. READ THE OP-ED. You will either throw up or want to do so. The cartoon ... well, the GLOBE has sunk to the bottom of the Great Marianas Trench in the Pacific and then has sunk 1,500 feet deep into the mud. Media slime? Too kind a choice of words. Much too kind. Check these out at the Globe's website ... pages A12 and A13. Direct letters to the editor to: letter@globe.com Direct letters of MORAL OUTRAGE to the Globe's ombudsperson at: ombud@globe.com This Wasserman cartoon is way, way over the line, and The Boston Globe must be shamed into printing an apology. I am not holding my breath. Best regards, Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: BOSTON GLOBE OP-ED by David Nyhan Date: 27 Aug 1997 10:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Well, the BOSTON GLOBE just cannot stop rolling in the blood of crime victims and dancing on their graves. What ghouls. Please check out this op-ed of David Nyhan's and repost to "noban" and "roc" ... "Will The Bloody Toll In N.H. Change Some Attitudes?" Machine limitations on my end will not allow me to gain access to the Globe's web page. (Page A21, 08/27/97.) Check it out. You will realize what we are up against in The Granite State. Best regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The Redneck Manifesto Date: 27 Aug 1997 12:25:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This book is a must read!! It is hardhitting and to the point!! Will certainly upset the Liberals if they ever get ahold of it. THE REDNECK MANIFESTO -- AMERICA'S SCAPEGOATS: HOW WE GOT THAT WAY AND WHY WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE by Jim Goad In a book that is destined to be praised, reviled, cited, denounced, loved, and hated -- perhaps by the same reader -- culture maverick Jim Goad presents a thoroughly reasoned, darkly funny, and rampagingly angry defense of America's most maligned social group -- the cultural clan variously referred to as rednecks, hillbillies, white trash, crackers, and trailer trash (provided they're white trailer trash, of course). As THE REDNECK MANISFESTO boldly points out and brillantly demonstrates, America's dirty little secret isn't racism, but classism. While pouncing incessantly on racial themes, most major media are silent about America's widening class rifts, a problem which negatively affects more people of all colors than does racism. In a nation obsessed with race, this book switches the focus firmly back toward class, and it warns in a voice loud and clear that America will never learn the true meaning of tolerance until it learns to embrace the redneck. Until this book, no one has so fully explained why white trash exists in America. Tracing the unique historical diaspora of America's white poor, THE REDNECT MANIFESTO offers evidence that mass forceful deportation of white slaves and convict laborers from the British Isles formed the bulk of America's white underclass. Tracing the history of these people, the book probes the hidden cultural meanings behind jokes about inbreeding and bestiality. It gets its hands dirty with blue-collar frustration, recreational desperation, and religious salvation. It discusses the value of Elvis, Bigfoot, and space aliens as objects of spiritual veneration. It offers solid logical defenses of tax protest, gun ownership, and antigovernment "hate speech." And it lists surprising reasons for why rednecks and blacks have more in common with each other than either group does with white liberals. With an unmatched ability for rubbing salt in cultural wounds, Jim Goad deftly dismantles most popular American notions about race and culture and takes a sledgehammer to our delicate glass-blown popular conceptions of government, religion, media, and history. His own socio-economic background leads him to prefer crackers over slackers, hillbillies over hipsters, and white trash over white cash. He is certain that the trailer park holds more honest people than the House of Representatives, and he knows from personal experience that truck drivers are more trustworthy than lawyers. You've not read another book like THE REDNECK MANIFESTO because there are no other books like it. It's the sort of book that comes along once in a lifetime, which will be to often for some people. It's a rude awakening for a spazzed-out nation. A fire under the ass of culturally confused country. A literary laxative for a constipated pbulic. It's destined to prick the conscience of a nation which enjoys feeling guilty, but which doesn't like to do anything about it. You'll laugh, and then you'll hate yourself for laughing. Your mind will be pried open, but it'll only hurt a little while. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEC ASPERA TERRENT! alphashewolf@proaxis.com Running with the pack!! Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf FREEDOM'S VOICE: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf/free.htm PATRIOTS UNDERSIEGE: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf/siege.htm GUARDIANS' CORNER: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf/guard.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Letters to Boston Globe 8/26 Date: 27 Aug 1997 10:39:34 -0700 Jacques, [...] "Guns provide no protection to people who are not unscrupulous enough to use them to advantage . . ." -snip- (and) The motto of the Granite State could aptly be: ''Live free and quite possibly die as a result.'' [...] So, uh, let's see. Presumably only cops are "unscrupulous enough" to have firearms, and if you want to be free, then you must die. (You must die, die, my darling! HA HA HA!) Oops, sorry, got carried away there. Of course the opposite presumes, that if you don't live free, then you'll - live? Really? Forever? Hmm. I know that not all the citizens of Tax-a-chusettes are as deranged(?) as what the above represents, cuz the Benchmeister lives therein. But, that's _another_ story. ;-) So, what could be the plausable cause of that insane rant? The second letter merits absolutely no response, as it is so far left that it may well represent the results of extreme brain damage. I cannot bring myself to attack the letter of a person so debilitated with the lack of intelligence, that it would be resolutely prejudiced. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Letters to Boston Globe 8/26 Date: 27 Aug 1997 10:39:34 -0700 Jacques, [...] "Guns provide no protection to people who are not unscrupulous enough to use them to advantage . . ." -snip- (and) The motto of the Granite State could aptly be: ''Live free and quite possibly die as a result.'' [...] So, uh, let's see. Presumably only cops are "unscrupulous enough" to have firearms, and if you want to be free, then you must die. (You must die, die, my darling! HA HA HA!) Oops, sorry, got carried away there. Of course the opposite presumes, that if you don't live free, then you'll - live? Really? Forever? Hmm. I know that not all the citizens of Tax-a-chusettes are as deranged(?) as what the above represents, cuz the Benchmeister lives therein. But, that's _another_ story. ;-) So, what could be the plausable cause of that insane rant? The second letter merits absolutely no response, as it is so far left that it may well represent the results of extreme brain damage. I cannot bring myself to attack the letter of a person so debilitated with the lack of intelligence, that it would be resolutely prejudiced. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: LIBERAL lies About Decreasing Crime Date: 27 Aug 1997 11:34:48 PDT Well, reading the following is certainly a great revelation. All we hear is that crime is decreasing so fast that it is a non problem .....but as we walk about we see ever fewer people brave enough to have a walk ..... and ever more bars on windows and security lights But as we read CRIME is actually exploding upward as measured by visits to hospital emergency rooms for treatments for violence .....but because people have so little faith in the ability of the police to protect them they will NOT sign police reports if it involves giving name / address because of FEAR or retribution. One would certainly like to have all these accursed liberals and their gun control explain this Jack DIANA GRIEGO ERWIN: The measure of violent crime Copyright =A9 1997 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1997 Scripps-McClatchy Western=20 SACRAMENTO, Calif. (August 27, 1997 00:52 a.m. EDT) - Alone, the Justice Department study released Sunday is clear. It found that emergency rooms = across the country treated 1.3 million victims of violent attacks, 250 percent m= ore people than the government previously thought. Yet a "USA Weekend" story published the same day echoed several recent st= udies declaring many of our fears unwarranted, especially where violent crime i= s concerned. "New FBI statistics show one in 156 Americans was a victim of a violent c= rime last year, a 7 percent drop from the year before," the story said. (Ironically= , the FBI is a Justice Department agency.) The story pointed out that while 90 percent of us feel the world is less = safe than when we were young, the good ol' days lacked seat belts, sonograms, air b= ags and organ transplants. Add to that residential smoke alarms, preventative mam= mograms and domestic-violence legislation. So which is it? Is life out there more dangerous, or is it not? Like other statistical stories, some of the discrepancies exist because t= he numbers were gathered from different sources, in this case, one set from law enfo= rcement agencies, the other from hospital emergency rooms. But the overall crime = picture is further blurred by changing views of what counts as violence. Ask a Sacramento woman who recently learned that an overburdened judicial system may not take violence as seriously as she'd like. Cynthia Williams, a 37-year-old state worker, admits she accidentally cut= off another motorist Aug. 11 when she thought she had plenty of room to chang= e lanes to avoid a slow-moving truck on a busy commercial road. The 54-year-old r= etiree she cut off apparently disagreed. Williams said she accelerated to get out of his way, but he tailed her fo= r the next half mile, staying within a yard of her back bumper, honking much of the = way. When she came to a stoplight, he laid on the horn some more. "I know it was wrong, but my daughter flipped him off," Williams said. The driver got out of his van and strode up to the driver's window to exp= ress his displeasure in person. Williams said he cursed and threatened her while s= he tried to calm him down. "Finally, I told him 'We're done,' and let my clutch out a bit to move th= e car forward," she said. "He drew back his fist and hit me in the face." Her 17-year-old daughter jumped out of the car in protest. According to t= he police report, he rounded the car, asked if the girl wanted some of him and punc= hed her, too. The suspect admits to the assault in his police statement. Onlookers= swarmed to their aid. Williams told deputies she wanted to prosecute, but the fact she had to s= ign a citizen's arrest form made her pause. "The officer ... explained that eve= n though I had several witnesses, since he personally hadn't seen the offense, he co= uld not make the arrest, but that I could make a 'private person's arrest.' " That's long been the procedure for many misdemeanors "not committed in th= e officer's presence" unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as t= he suspect has no identification or is from out of town, said Sacramento Sheriff's S= gt. Jim Cooper. Williams worried that signing the complaint would give her assailant acce= ss to her address. The officer also told her the district attorney could chose not to prosec= ute if it was decided the Williamses provoked the attack. "I was incredulous. What do you mean? My bad driving and my daughter's ba= d manners gave this man the right to hit us in the face?" She said the deputy kept telling her how lucky they were not to have been= shot - people are shot for a lot less these days. "Minimizing is the word that comes to mind," Williams said. "I suppose wh= en you see all he must in a day, my incident was no big deal. But it was to us." The larger question is what happens when we as a society start to shrug o= ff the so-called little things, if a fist in the face can be called that? Do vio= lent crimes escalate in the absence of real consequences? Do we really want to live i= n a place where assaulting another person is no big deal? "I don't think any of those people who helped us do," Williams said. As in most non-felony crimes, the alleged assailant was cited, given a co= urt date and released - not hauled off to jail. Too bad. Neither will the incident make any list quantifying the way we should fee= l about crime. (Diana Griego Erwin is a columnist for The Sacramento Bee. Her e-mail address is dgriego@sacbee.com.) Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: [FWIW] UNforgivable! Date: 27 Aug 1997 17:16:07 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:09:50 -0500 (CDT) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] UNforgivable! >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW >[Excerpt] > >"Peacekeepers" in Action > >If the mass news media were actually in the business of >reporting news, rather than molding public attitudes to >conform to the Establishment's "consensus," the photo- >graph published on the cover of the June 24th issue of >the liberal Village Voice weekly would be as familiar >to the public as the infamous videotape of the Rodney >King arrest. The photograph of UN "peacekeepers" >roasting a Somali teenager over a spit wordlessly >conveys the threat the body represents: Unaccountable >power employed mercilessly against the helpless. > >"From Canada to Belgium to Italy, witness accounts and >peacekeepers' own souvenir snapshots are laying bare >alleged wrongdoing by [UN] troops in Somalia, including >the torture, rape, and murder of Somalis," reported the >Associated Press on July 25th. The wire service report >mentioned Claude Bert and Kurt Coelum, the Belgian >"peacekeepers" who dangled the hapless Somali boy over >an open fire. Other Belgian wearers of the blue beret >displayed similarly depraved creativity. One force-fed >salt-water and spoiled pork to a Muslim Somali child; >another killed a Somali child by locking him in a metal >box. Yet another - in an act that would repel anyone >with even a residual sense of Christian decency - was >photographed urinating on the body of a dead Somali. >Nor was the Belgian "peacekeeping" detachment unique. >A "peacekeeper" from Italy was photographed in the act >of raping a Somali woman, and Canadian troops were >involved in the torture-murder of 16-year-old Shidane >Arone. > >Somali is not the only African nation that has experi- >enced the UN's peculiar version of humanitarianism. >Last December, the UN ruefully admitted that the market >in child prostitution thrives wherever "peacekeepers" >can be found - as residents of Mozambique learned to >their disgust in 1994. Prostitute fees for UN bureau- >crats were prominent among the expenses charged to >the Somali mission, according to the Village Voice. > >But the UN played an even more atrocious role in the >worst genocide in recent memory. According to Peter >Hammond of Frontline Fellowship, the Rwandan genocide >of 1994 - in which a half-million Tutsis, most of >them Christian, were slaughtered in 100 days - was >abetted by the malicious indifference of the UN. >"Many of the mass murderers were employees of the >international relief agencies," Hammond writes in >Holocaust in Rwanda, his searing on-site testimony. >He recounts one incident in which UN troops stationed >in a heavily fortified base in Kigali "deceived the >refugees by assembling them for a meal in the dining >hall and then [they] evacuated the base while the >refugees were eating. Literally two minutes after >the Belgians had driven out of their base, the [Hutu] >Presidential Guard poured into the buildings annihi- >lating the defenceless Tutsi refugees." > >In one incident described by Hammond, Ghanian UN >troops ignored pleas for help from a group of Tutsis >- despite the fact that the slaughter was literally >taking place in front of them. On another occasion >a group of French and German missionaries pleaded >with UN forces to help evacuate survivors from the >site of a massacre in Kigali; when the "peacekeepers" >failed to respond, 170 people were killed a mere >four days later. "Rwandese respect for the United >Nations was shattered after April 1994," Hammond >observes. "The UN has sunk so low in Rwandese esti- >mation that few people could refer to the UN with- >out expressions of disgust and bitterness." That >sentiment was shared by several Belgian soldiers >assigned to UN duty in Rwanda, who - cut up their >blue berets in disgust upon their return home. > >"As I walked amidst the killing fields of Rwanda >many thoughts were rushing through my mind," >reflects Hammond. "Here we see the total depravity >of man and the total failure of man's attempted >solutions. If the United Nations is meant to be >any kind of answer to the complex problems caused >by man's rebellion against our Creator...then we >are lost. From what I have seen in Rwanda the UN, >and the humanist agenda it represents, is part of >the problem - not a solution.... We need strict >laws, checks and balances, decentralization and >armed citizens to restrain the evil within man's >heart." > >UN partisans, who always insist that the organiza- >tion should be judged by its professed ideals rather >than its tangible record, may protest that the >horrors described by Hammond and documented by the >Village Voice are an irrelevant part of the past, >now that the glorious era of reform has commenced >under Secretary-General Kofi Annan. However, it >must be remembered that Mr, Annan was the head of UN >peacekeeping activities while all of these outrages >were underway. "Reform" is not the solution; the >UN should not become a more efficient, cost-effective >engine of despotism and depravity. The only morally >sound solution is to withdraw from the despicable >body and evict it from our shores. > >[end excerpt] > >Source: The JBS Bulletin * September 1997 * pages 4-6 > >Website: http://www.jbs.org > > =================================================================== > To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following: > To: listserv@execpc.com > Subj: (leave blank) > Message: > subscribe fwiw > > That's it! The welcome letter will tell you more! > =================================================================== > To unsubscribe, simply send the above instructed message, > substituting "unsubscribe" where appropriate. > =================================================================== > Visit the largest on-line collection of quality > non-mainstream "true" Conservative text files at: > THE CONSERVATIVE CORNER - http://www.execpc.com/~jfish > =================================================================== > > > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A 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: Tom Cloyes Subject: WACO: Rules of Engagement - Ohio Showings Date: 27 Aug 1997 17:35:18 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:47:35 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >To: Liberty Belle >Subject: WACO: Rules of Engagement - Ohio Showings > >********************************************************************* > THE DREXEL > Columbus, OH > > Showing October 3 - 9 > >********************************************************************* > CLEVELAND CINEMATHEQUE > Cleveland, OH > > Showing September 20 & 21 > >********************************************************************* > THE MOVIES > Cincinnati, OH > > Showing September 26 - October 2 > >********************************************************************* > > "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't." Unknown-Thanks to E Pluribus Unum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Gerry Spence on the Idaho charges about Ruby Ridge (fwd) Date: 27 Aug 1997 16:53:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >=20 > [Image] [CNN Travel] [Image] > >=20 > (COMMERCIAL BREAK) >=20 > VAN SUSTEREN: Kevin Harris was tried for first-degree > murder by the federal government, and the jury said > not guilty. Now the State of Idaho has charged him > with first-degree murder and charged a current FBI > agent with manslaughter. It all stems from the > shoot-out at Ruby Ridge. >=20 > Joining us by telephone is Gerry Spence. Gerry, what > do you think of these two charges, one is the > first-degree murder and one is the manslaughter? >=20 > GERRY SPENCE, CRIMINAL-DEFENSE ATTORNEY (on the > phone): Well, I'm thinking of that poor kid, Kevin > Harris, who's as innocent as any person that ever you > laid eyes on. He was tried by a federal jury along > with Randy Weaver for three months. The federal > government brought in the best evidence they could, > and the jury immediately acquitted. >=20 > Let me give you a -- one quick fast minute sketch of > what the facts were. Here comes -- here comes the > federal officers all decked out in camouflage, their > faces camouflaged, hiding in the woods, and they -- > and here come the kids, Kevin Harris and little Sammy > Weaver, age 14, and they're walking down following > the dog, the old dog. They think there's -- they're > on a bear's track, and the old dog would beat you to > death with his tail. That old dog comes by these men, > these men hiding in the woods, and they shoot the >=20 > dog. These federal officers shoot this dog, break his > back, and if you've ever seen an animal crawling, > trying to -- and whimpering with its back broken. The > little kid, 14 years old, says -- doesn't know who it > is, shoots into the woods, says, "You killed my dog!" > and then his father was way -- his -- who's way back > in the back country hears the shooting and hollers -- > that's Randy Weaver -- hollers, "Come on home, > Sammy." He's calling to his little boy, and Sammy > says, "I'm coming, Dad," and he starts to run, and > the federal officers open fire on this little > boy, shoot his arm off and shoot him in the back and >=20 > kill him, and Kevin Harris is there, sees his little > partner being shot by people he can't recognize, > doesn't know anything about, and he knows he's going > to be killed as well by these crazy people, and he > shoots in the direction of the officers. > I don't even know whether he killed the officer > involved, but to try -- he certainly had a complete > defense, for the defense of the little boy and for > the defense of himself. The jury found him not > guilty, and the -- talk about loopholes, you guys, > loopholes that defendants crawl through. Here is a >=20 > woman who is the prosecutor up there, wanting to be a > Marcia Clark, I guess, wants to write another -- > maybe a $4-million book contract or something, who > now crawls through on behalf of the State of Idaho a > loophole and prosecutes this kid for the same crime > that he's already been tried and acquitted of. >=20 > COSSACK: All right. Now, Gerry, people are going to > write us and ask us, "Well, why isn't this double > jeopardy?" and -- you know, tell us why it isn't > double jeopardy. >=20 > SPENCE: Well, it is -- it is double jeopardy, but > legally -- the loophole is that since it's a federal > -- since he was tried in the federal court that it's > not double jeopardy under the Constitution if he's > now tried in the state court. It's only when the > state tries him a second time or the federal > government tries him a second time, but it -- it is a > -- it -- most often, the states give comity to the -- > give respect to the federal government and the >=20 > federal government to the state. Rarely do we see > this. Occasionally. This woman is doing it for > reasons that I can't understand. That boy is out on a > $10,000 bond in a murder case. That's almost unheard > of. The judge himself must understand that this kid > isn't guilty of anything. It's a real American > tragedy. >=20 > VAN SUSTEREN: Well, Gerry, you say that you don't > understand the first-degree murder. One of the issues > -- and I'll go to Peter Greenspun who's joined us, a > for a criminal-defense attorney -- is -- there is a > manslaughter charge as well against an FBI agent. > It's incredibly unusual, isn't it, under the > circumstances? >=20 > PETER GREENSPUN, CRIMINAL-DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Almost > unheard of, and what you have here is an FBI agent, > and the prosecutors are saying that that agent was > basically so negligent that it rose to the level of > being willful in bringing that manslaughter charge, > that he was doing a legal act, that is acting as a > law-enforcement officer, but with such a disregard to > the rights of the victims that he should be > prosecuted for... >=20 > VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let's find out from Gerry. What > were the facts, Gerry, that -- why do you think... >=20 > SPENCE: Let me tell you something about that. These > people -- these people if they wanted to -- they're > just playing games. This prosecutor is just playing > games. She could -- they could charge that federal > officer who killed Mrs. Weaver, who shot her head off > while she was holding a baby in her arms -- they > could charge him with first-degree murder based upon > transferred intent, and let me show you why. Randy > Weaver and Kevin Harris were running for the house, > and > the -- running with their backs to the officers that >=20 > were shooting at them. The officer, Horiuchi, shot > Randy Weaver in the arm, he shot Kevin Harris through > the lung, nearly killed him, and he shot Mrs. Weaver > -- accidentally he claims -- through the head. Well, > he intended to kill Randy Weaver, and he intended to > kill Kevin Harris. So that's an intentional attempt > to commit a felony, and when you kill accidentally in > the process of attempting to commit a murder, the > trans -- the intent is transferred, and he could have > been charged with first-degree murder. Why he wasn't > I don't know. >=20 > But that really isn't the tragedy there. The tragedy > is that Horiuchi was the man who's been charged with > the -- with manslaughter here, the federal officer. >=20 > COSSACK: Gerry, let me just interrupt you... >=20 > SPENCE: Horiuchi was... >=20 > COSSACK: Let me interrupt you just one second, Gerry. >=20 > Peter, I want to ask you this. The federal government > has recently come out in the -- and said there was no > reason to do anything to the -- Horiuchi or the FBI > agents. Now this D.A. indicts in light of the federal > solution -- federal results. Is that like saying -- > is that the State of Idaho saying, "We just don't > believe you feds." >=20 > GREENSPUN: Saying in your face that "We're going to > take an independent look at it, and we're going to > prosecute." Gerry's point may be well taken that it > could be murder, but to have a state prosecutor > indict for manslaughter an FBI agent is remarkable in > and of itself, and they're saying, "We're not going > to take your conclusion. We're going to look at the > facts and make our own conclusion that this agent > should have known who was behind that door before the > first shot was fired." >=20 > SPENCE: Roger, the thing that you can't really > overlook and that we must not overlook is that > they're sh -- they're getting the lowest man on the > totem pole. Where -- why aren't we prosecuting the > people who changed the rules of engagement illegally > and opened the door for this man to commit that > crime? The higher-ups are the ones that should be > prosecuted, and this is a -- sort of a -- I think if > we looked at it and understood it that there's > something going on behind the scenes here that we do > not understand. Why aren't the... >=20 > VAN SUSTEREN: Gerry, are you saying... >=20 > SPENCE: ... people that ordered this being > prosecuted? >=20 > VAN SUSTEREN: Gerry, are you saying that -- perhaps > that the FBI agent is sort of a fall guy for the > higher-ups? Is that what you're saying? >=20 > SPENCE: Absolutely. There isn't any question about > that. >=20 > COSSACK: Gerry, are you saying cover-up? >=20 > SPENCE: Well, it's -- there's already been one of the > federal agents prosecuted. The FBI agents have > already been prosecuted for the cover-up of these > crimes. >=20 > COSSACK: All right. Gerry, we've got to go. When we > come back, we'll talk about a stunning settlement in > the ongoing tobacco negotiations. Stay with us. >=20 > (BEGIN GRAPHIC) >=20 > > =A9 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. > A Time Warner Company > All Rights Reserved. >=20 > Terms under which this service is provided to you. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: WACO: Rules of Engagement - Missouri Showing Date: 29 Aug 1997 01:15:42 -0500 ********************************************************************* TIVOLI THEATER, MANOR SQ, WESTPORT Kansas City, MO Showing September 19 thru 25 ********************************************************************* "The sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the Citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." - Alabama Constitution; Article I =A735 =20 =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: A Need for Oldies' & New Hits' Lyrics Date: 28 Aug 1997 08:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Oldies Jim Dandy (Laverne Baker) "Fed Sniper" Watusi (unknown group) "Horiuchi" At the Hop (Danny & The Juniors) "Take the Shot" Rock Around The Clock (Bill Haley & Comets) "Glock Around The Clock" Angel Eyes (unknown group) "Sniper Eyes" 26 Miles (The Four Preps) "26 Meters" Shake, Rattle & Roll (various artists) "Shoot, Scatter and Roll" Last Kiss (unknown artist) "Last Miss" New Rock Free Falling (unknown new group) "Freeh Falling" Rap Whoomp, Dere It Is (unknown group) "Whoomp, Dere Dey Was" I cannot access the needed websites due to machine limitations. There is no hurry on this request. If somebody can get to it, great. You all may get a chuckle out of some of the end product. Best regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: FW: Nightline transcript available (fwd) Date: 28 Aug 1997 07:39:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 10:17 PM Transcript available - Nightline on Jury Nullification ABC Nightline Tuesday, August 26, 1997 Topic: Jury Nullification America In Black And White (Part I) Race And The Criminal Justice System Transcript: www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/ntl0826.html Or email jrp for the text of the transcript (long.) Guests: Paul Butler, law professor, George Washington University Randall Kennedy, law professor, Harvard University Reggie Walton, Washington D.C. Superior Court judge Laura Kriho, former juror convicted of contempt of court Paul Grant, attorney for Laura Kriho Angela Davis, law professor, American University Edward Eagles, Jury foreman in the trial of Marion Barry Reported by: Ted Koppel and Michel McQueen Comments are encouraged to: Nightline - ABC News 1717 De Sales St. NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 1-800-ABC-WASH Email: ntline@abcnews.com Web: http://www.abcnews.com Comments: http://www.abcnews.com/email.html Re-distributed by the: Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, send email with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the title. (We apologize for not getting the original post out sooner. We sent the email notice out as soon as we were informed that the show would be broadcast. -- JRP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Fwd: [FWIW] "Right" from the beginning! (fwd) Date: 28 Aug 1997 07:48:16 -0500 (CDT) --------------------- Forwarded message: Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com Reply-to: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com FWIW What We Learned From the Cold War -- Anything??? By C. Grady Drago AUTHORS NOTE: Since the fall of the Soviet Union, western journalists have had access to the Soviet archives and evidence of Soviet espionage, although access has been lessened in recent months. The files also provide hints of targets for the character assassinations of people that spoke out about the infiltration of communists in our midst. It also appears clear that the attacks were orchestrated and often funded by the former Soviet Union Communist Party. Of particular concern here is the utter lack of concern for the individuals and members of their families that were the subject of character assasination by liberals in the media and elswhere. Below is an article that I originally authored for the ADDRESS, a Lincoln Heritage Institute public policy publication dealing with this issue. I liberally quoted from an article titled, "Progressive Evil Across Time," by Joseph Sobran that appeared in the April 20, 1996 issue of the Washington Times. Not only have we had requests for copies of this article, which appears on our home page (http://members.aol.com/lhiadmof) but what the files depict appears to reflect the same character and tactics of those attempting to increase the centralization of power in Washington today. * * * * "Setting history straight is sometimes a difficult task, as hearing the truth often is. However, when it comes from the horse's mouth, it is difficult to ignore or openly deny. With the fall of the USSR, the KGB began declassifying the secret files of the USSR's subversive activities. These records, as the research is detailing, contain the names of individual spies, how money was channeled by the Soviet Communist Party into the U.S., and details on many subversive activities. Among the many things these files apparently reveal are the plans to sabotage the personal character of individuals that dared to speak out against the communist threat to overturn this nation's government. This begs the question as to why some members of the news media and liberals were so eager to rush to the attack and condemn individuals that made allegations of treason? Among other things, an article in the Washington Post by Nicholas von Hoffman points out that recent disclosures prove that Senator Joe McCarthy was closer to the truth than were his liberal critics, and that he was incorrect only in the estimated numbers of spies -- his figures were apparently low. Von Hoffman also points out that not only Alger Hiss, but many others that were accused of spying were indeed communist spies. Joseph Sobran in the Washington Times article queried why intellectuals and liberals so openly supported Joseph Stalin and his Communist regime as idealists while opposing Hitler? Both regimes were dictatorial, centralizing all power in the national government, and as available evidence showes both were involved in the same types of atrocities against mankind? The New York Times reported during the early 1930's that there was no mass starvation in Ukraine, while the Hearst newspapers not only reported the communist policy of starving Ukraine but showed pictures of the famished victims. Yet the New York Times' reporter, Walter Duranty, got the Pulitzer Prize for his deliberate lies, while William Randolph Hearst was pilloried for his "yellow journalism." Again, why, even when evidence was presented, were those pointing out the cases of treason so enthusiastically vilified by liberals, particularly those in the media? Unfortunately, it is still going on today. Just a few months ago I watched part of a TV special (it appeared to be a about a year old) hosted by a prominent member of the American news media as he railed against Richard Nixon and conservatives because they accused and prosecuted Alger Hiss as a Russian Spy. Now the orchestrators of the espionage are providing the free world with the historic evidence of their activities by declassifying the evidence of their acts.. The question arises, where are those that so vocally, energetically, and enthusiastically attacked and ridiculed those making the charges against Hiss, the Rosenbergs, and other traitors? Why have they not come to the forefront and set the record straight for the sake of the spouses and children of those whose character they so enthusiastically vilified in public? It appears that these KGB opened files are providing the unique opportunity to see first hand the "rest of the story," so to speak, on historical activities that occurred during the lifetime of existing generations. While in recent months access to these files has been limited, the are answering some nagging question and may be raising questions the answers to which we may not be ready to hear. At a time when we are experiencing one of the greatest attempts to centralize power in Washington, this issue is particularly pertinent and should be of particular interest to our political leaders and to every American citizen." * * * "This article is reprinted from the Lincoln Log, which is published by the Lincoln Heritage Institute, a not for profit public policy/education corporation established to foster a free market economy, individual and states' rights, and a limited role for government. The Institute also publishes the ADDRESS, a periodical public policy publication. We are nonpartisan, but energetically and aggressively promote our conservative policies to establish a social, political, economic, and legal environment in which everyone can achieve to the maximum of their ability and effort. If there are any questions, please contact us at LHIadmof@aol.com, or see our home page, currently under modification, at http://members.aol.com/lhiadmof C. Grady Drago, President" =================================================================== To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following: To: listserv@execpc.com Subj: (leave blank) Message: subscribe fwiw That's it! The welcome letter will tell you more! =================================================================== To unsubscribe, simply send the above instructed message, substituting "unsubscribe" where appropriate. =================================================================== Visit the largest on-line collection of quality non-mainstream "true" Conservative text files at: THE CONSERVATIVE CORNER - http://www.execpc.com/~jfish =================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Correction to Nightline transcript available (fwd) Date: 28 Aug 1997 07:49:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Correction to data below: Nightline's email address is ntline@abc.com (not abcnews.com). -----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 10:17 PM Transcript available - Nightline on Jury Nullification ABC Nightline Tuesday, August 26, 1997 Topic: Jury Nullification America In Black And White (Part I) Race And The Criminal Justice System Transcript: www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/ntl0826.html Or email jrp for the text of the transcript (long.) Guests: Paul Butler, law professor, George Washington University Randall Kennedy, law professor, Harvard University Reggie Walton, Washington D.C. Superior Court judge Laura Kriho, former juror convicted of contempt of court Paul Grant, attorney for Laura Kriho Angela Davis, law professor, American University Edward Eagles, Jury foreman in the trial of Marion Barry Reported by: Ted Koppel and Michel McQueen Comments are encouraged to: Nightline - ABC News 1717 De Sales St. NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 1-800-ABC-WASH Email: ntline@abcnews.com Web: http://www.abcnews.com Comments: http://www.abcnews.com/email.html Re-distributed by the: Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, send email with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the title. (We apologize for not getting the original post out sooner. We sent the email notice out as soon as we were informed that the show would be broadcast. -- JRP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: L&J: > Kevin Harris Defense Fund (fwd) Date: 28 Aug 1997 09:20:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com Ok folks: Here is an opportunity to do something to help Kevin Harris. We are all paying for the legal expenses for Horiuchi (the FBI thug) in our taxes so lets help Harris and his family with at least a $10.00 check from each of us. If each person that receives this sent at least that much it would be a great start towards paying for his defense. Some can send much more so lets each do what we can. Remember, it could be you or me that gets caught in this evil next. Jackie Juntti >X-Sender: ghostpwr@dmi.net >Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:08:20 -0700 >To: Jackie Juntti >From: Liberty or Death >Subject: >>> Kevin Harris Defense Fund > >>Hi, >> >>Just heard an interview with Danielle Harris (Kevin's wife) on the radio. A >>defense fund has been set up to help pay the outrageous cost of beating this >>double jeopardy bullshit. Contributions will be accepted at: >> >> Harris Special Account >> Seafirst Bank >> Republic, WA 99166 >> >> Acct# 03566-16215 >> >> Branch Phone# (509) 775-3315 >> >>Here's a chance for each of us to do something positive. >> >>Good Luck, >>John >> >> >> >> > > >- Monte > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Oh Lord, lead us into Your Glory - bathe us in the holy & pure > light of Your Spirit; let Your righteous fire burn away all > that is in us that is not of You, so that we might worship > the Living God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. > Amen. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Idaho Observer > http://www.proliberty.com/observer > >.... It is NOT Who You are...... It is WHOSE you are!!!! ..Jackie Juntti =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: "S, Chuck" Subject: Re: [FWIW] UNforgivable! Date: 28 Aug 1997 09:35:51 -0500 (CDT) Frankly, I don't buy it. Everybody's a f*#%ing publisher. Chuck At 05:16 PM 8/27/97 -0400, you wrote: >>Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:09:50 -0500 (CDT) >>From: James Fish >>X-Sender: jfish@earth >>To: fwiw@execpc.com >>Subject: [FWIW] UNforgivable! >>Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >>Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >> >>FWIW >>[Excerpt] >> >>"Peacekeepers" in Action >> >>If the mass news media were actually in the business of >>reporting news, rather than molding public attitudes to >>conform to the Establishment's "consensus," the photo- >>graph published on the cover of the June 24th issue of >>the liberal Village Voice weekly would be as familiar >>to the public as the infamous videotape of the Rodney >>King arrest. The photograph of UN "peacekeepers" >>roasting a Somali teenager over a spit wordlessly >>conveys the threat the body represents: Unaccountable >>power employed mercilessly against the helpless. >> >>"From Canada to Belgium to Italy, witness accounts and >>peacekeepers' own souvenir snapshots are laying bare >>alleged wrongdoing by [UN] troops in Somalia, including >>the torture, rape, and murder of Somalis," reported the >>Associated Press on July 25th. The wire service report >>mentioned Claude Bert and Kurt Coelum, the Belgian >>"peacekeepers" who dangled the hapless Somali boy over >>an open fire. Other Belgian wearers of the blue beret >>displayed similarly depraved creativity. One force-fed >>salt-water and spoiled pork to a Muslim Somali child; >>another killed a Somali child by locking him in a metal >>box. Yet another - in an act that would repel anyone >>with even a residual sense of Christian decency - was >>photographed urinating on the body of a dead Somali. >>Nor was the Belgian "peacekeeping" detachment unique. >>A "peacekeeper" from Italy was photographed in the act >>of raping a Somali woman, and Canadian troops were >>involved in the torture-murder of 16-year-old Shidane >>Arone. >> >>Somali is not the only African nation that has experi- >>enced the UN's peculiar version of humanitarianism. >>Last December, the UN ruefully admitted that the market >>in child prostitution thrives wherever "peacekeepers" >>can be found - as residents of Mozambique learned to >>their disgust in 1994. Prostitute fees for UN bureau- >>crats were prominent among the expenses charged to >>the Somali mission, according to the Village Voice. >> >>But the UN played an even more atrocious role in the >>worst genocide in recent memory. According to Peter >>Hammond of Frontline Fellowship, the Rwandan genocide >>of 1994 - in which a half-million Tutsis, most of >>them Christian, were slaughtered in 100 days - was >>abetted by the malicious indifference of the UN. >>"Many of the mass murderers were employees of the >>international relief agencies," Hammond writes in >>Holocaust in Rwanda, his searing on-site testimony. >>He recounts one incident in which UN troops stationed >>in a heavily fortified base in Kigali "deceived the >>refugees by assembling them for a meal in the dining >>hall and then [they] evacuated the base while the >>refugees were eating. Literally two minutes after >>the Belgians had driven out of their base, the [Hutu] >>Presidential Guard poured into the buildings annihi- >>lating the defenceless Tutsi refugees." >> >>In one incident described by Hammond, Ghanian UN >>troops ignored pleas for help from a group of Tutsis >>- despite the fact that the slaughter was literally >>taking place in front of them. On another occasion >>a group of French and German missionaries pleaded >>with UN forces to help evacuate survivors from the >>site of a massacre in Kigali; when the "peacekeepers" >>failed to respond, 170 people were killed a mere >>four days later. "Rwandese respect for the United >>Nations was shattered after April 1994," Hammond >>observes. "The UN has sunk so low in Rwandese esti- >>mation that few people could refer to the UN with- >>out expressions of disgust and bitterness." That >>sentiment was shared by several Belgian soldiers >>assigned to UN duty in Rwanda, who - cut up their >>blue berets in disgust upon their return home. >> >>"As I walked amidst the killing fields of Rwanda >>many thoughts were rushing through my mind," >>reflects Hammond. "Here we see the total depravity >>of man and the total failure of man's attempted >>solutions. If the United Nations is meant to be >>any kind of answer to the complex problems caused >>by man's rebellion against our Creator...then we >>are lost. From what I have seen in Rwanda the UN, >>and the humanist agenda it represents, is part of >>the problem - not a solution.... We need strict >>laws, checks and balances, decentralization and >>armed citizens to restrain the evil within man's >>heart." >> >>UN partisans, who always insist that the organiza- >>tion should be judged by its professed ideals rather >>than its tangible record, may protest that the >>horrors described by Hammond and documented by the >>Village Voice are an irrelevant part of the past, >>now that the glorious era of reform has commenced >>under Secretary-General Kofi Annan. However, it >>must be remembered that Mr, Annan was the head of UN >>peacekeeping activities while all of these outrages >>were underway. "Reform" is not the solution; the >>UN should not become a more efficient, cost-effective >>engine of despotism and depravity. The only morally >>sound solution is to withdraw from the despicable >>body and evict it from our shores. >> >>[end excerpt] >> >>Source: The JBS Bulletin * September 1997 * pages 4-6 >> >>Website: http://www.jbs.org >> >> =================================================================== >> To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following: >> To: listserv@execpc.com >> Subj: (leave blank) >> Message: >> subscribe fwiw >> >> That's it! The welcome letter will tell you more! >> =================================================================== >> To unsubscribe, simply send the above instructed message, >> substituting "unsubscribe" where appropriate. >> =================================================================== >> Visit the largest on-line collection of quality >> non-mainstream "true" Conservative text files at: >> THE CONSERVATIVE CORNER - http://www.execpc.com/~jfish >> =================================================================== >> >> >> >> >> >> >"You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made >in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures >permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit >a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest >immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >(no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) > >"A 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) > > > > Chuck Scanland - Trebuchet Systems, Inc. Systems and Network Management Platforms: Implementation and Integration Consulting Phone 281-251-9710 email chucks@infohwy.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: A Need for Oldies' & New Hits' Lyrics Date: 28 Aug 1997 11:20:44 -0600 Chris Ferris wrote: > Oldies > > Jim Dandy (Laverne Baker) "Fed Sniper" > Watusi (unknown group) "Horiuchi" > At the Hop (Danny & The Juniors) "Take the Shot" > Rock Around The Clock (Bill Haley & Comets) "Glock Around The Clock" > > Angel Eyes (unknown group) "Sniper Eyes" I think that was ruby and the romantics but I wouldn't swear to it. > 26 Miles (The Four Preps) "26 Meters" > Shake, Rattle & Roll (various artists) "Shoot, Scatter and > Roll" > Big joe turner, bill haley. > Last Kiss (unknown artist) "Last Miss" > J. Frank Wilson. > New Rock > > Free Falling (unknown new group) "Freeh Falling" Tom petty and the heartbreakers ( i think ). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Fwd: [FWIW] "Right" from the beginning! (fwd) Date: 28 Aug 1997 11:18:56 -0700 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > --------------------- > Forwarded message: > From: jfish@execpc.com (James Fish) > Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > Reply-to: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > To: fwiw@execpc.com > Date: 97-08-27 15:21:08 EDT > > FWIW > > What We Learned From the Cold War -- Anything??? > We learned an enormous amount from the Cold War, but then we elected Clinton to set our foreign policy agenda, who didn't know any of the lessons and didn't care, and who staffed the White House and the cabinet with others who didn't know or care. Did you hear anyone in the 96 Presidential campaign talking about foreign policy? Did you hear anyone in the public clamoring for any information on foreign policy? Do any of us on ROC care about foreign policy, as compared to our 2nd Amendment RKBA rights? People get the kind of government they deserve. Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: TWA 800: Public Record REMOVED !! (fwd) Date: 29 Aug 1997 07:37:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- _____________________________________ (free to copy nonprofit with attribute) ------------------------------------- FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON TO THE NAVY TWA FLIGHT 800 RECOVERY TEAM: THINK TWICE BEFORE SPEAKING OUT by Ian Williams Goddard The White House recently removed the all-too-revealing Executive Order 13039 from the White House webpage. EO 13039 removes the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (which contains the Navy units that recovered the debris of TWA 800) from federal-labor protections that include protections for whistle blowers. The rights of the Navy crew were revoked to protect "national security." President Bill Clinton signed EO 13039 on the SAME DAY that the FBI seized the TWA 800 radar tapes from Richard Russell (03/11/97), which was just two days before PARIS MATCH was to run an article showing frames from the tape displaying an unknown high-speed vehicle near TWA 800, which was flying next to active naval-exercise zones. As soon as the government found out that Russell had the radar tapes, they quickly seized them and the President signed an Executive Order that promises to punish Navy personnel who dealt with TWA 800 should they decide to blow the whistle on Navy wrongdoing. One could hardly imagine stronger indicators of intent to suppress the truth about TWA 800... directed from the very top. Having a link to the White House webpage where EO 13039 was hidden apart from the other EOs was a powerful means to demonstrate the naked culpability of the federal gov- ernment in the downing of TWA 800. Well no more, EO 13039 has just been removed from the White House website. The government's policy: if the truth looks bad, erase it. Here's the former webpage of the now missing EO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1997/03/1997-03-11-exec-o rder-on-naval-special-warfare-development-group.text Instead of finding the EO, now you will find: You are trying to retrieve a document that is not available at this location. The EO was also listed at this White House webpage: http://library.whitehouse.gov/Retrieve.cgi?dbtype=text&id=7967&query=12171 but it has been removed from that webpage as well. All evidence of EO 13039 has even been removed from the White House Executive Order search engine: http://library.whitehouse.gov/?request=ExecutiveOrder indicating that they didn't simply rewrite the URLs. Get a glimpse of the fact that EO 13019 does/did exist by seeing it listed in the Federal Register; but hurry, before this evidence of it is also erased. Just go to: gopher://gopher.nara.gov/00/register/toc/1997/mar/mar14.toc where you will find these brief statements: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 ***** Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Naval Special Warfare Development Group, exclusion from Federal labor-management relations program (EO 13039), 12529 Copy it. So here's the incredible disappearing Executive Order: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _______________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release March 12, 1997 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - EXCLUSION OF THE NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE DEVELOPMENT GROUP FROM THE FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS PROGRAM By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7103(b)(1) of title 5 of the United States Code, and having determined that the Naval Special Warfare Development Group has as a primary function intelligence, counter-intelligence, investigative, or national security work and that the provisions of Chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code cannot be applied to this organization in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations, Executive Order 12171 of November 19, 1979, as amended, is further amended by adding the following at the end of section 1-205: "(i) Naval Special Warfare Development Group." WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, March 11, 1997. ----------------------- End of E.O. 13039 ------------------- Navy assets and units that recovered the debris of TWA 800 included: USS Grasp (ARS 51) USS Grapple (ARS 53) USS Trenton (LPD 14) USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 1 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 2 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 6 Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 These assets and units are subsets of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group. E.O. 13039 removed all personnel in this Group from whistle-blower protections for reasons of "national security." For more: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/twa_labor.html ******************************************************************* Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ___________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Youngsters' Views on Mandatory "Volunteerism" Date: 29 Aug 1997 22:33:14 -0400 (EDT) For those who think that the younger generation is hopelessly lost. It sure opened my eyes. Tom >Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:44:34 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Youngsters' Views on Mandatory "Volunteerism" > >Dear M R, > >My 13-yr-old buddy Nick Ness recently entered an essay contest on the >matter of Big Government's newest program for schoolchildren: forced >"volunteerism." It chills me to hear of another such intrusion into the >private lives of Americans and another such violation of the inalienable >rights upon which this nation was founded. > >Well, cheer up. There are some precocious kids in this country who know >what time it is. And they aren't buying this latest scheme from the >government. First, the government compels kids to attend a >governemnt-approved educational establishemnt (child prison). Then they >compel them to work for free in order to be released from incarceration. > >Nick checked the web site of the competition organizers and was thrilled >to >find that a few lines from his essay are being quoted. > >He sent me all the quotes that were posted, with his comments, which >appear >below. > >-- Harvey > ======================================== > > >Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:55:12 -0700 > >Harvey-- > >Here is the part of my essay that LRT quoted. I also included the rest >of >the quotes from other entries for you to see. As you can see, I'm going >to >gave some pretty darn stiff competition... > >Nick > > > >In our Entrants' Words... > >"...if I was in a pinch for getting my required hours in on time and the >only job left was cleaning the bed pans at a retirement home, I would be >very upset. But, since I have to get those hours, I'm going and have to >do >it whether I like it or not. I also know that if I was put into that job >and hated it, but couldn't leave, I don't think that I would do a very >good >job. If Mr. Clinton really thought about the words he spoke, he would >realize that it would be better to have the forty REAL hours from Hannah >the Sophomore than the ninety forced hours from the ten slacking seniors >in >a predicament for their diplomas."-- Megan Lynch > >"...I propose that we start up 'Constitutional Awareness' seminars in >which >students are taught to be responsible and aware citizens. During the >seminars, students can be shown how the current regime operates, and how >they can protest and propagandize in the defense of their liberties. We >could start by informing them of all of their inalienable rights as >citizens of the United States. A large number of them would no doubt be >surprised to learn that since a 'citizen' is Constitutionally defined as >'all persons born or naturalized in the United States', without any >regard >to age, that they too have all of the legal rights of adults."-- Michael >Hohensee (Entry # 2) > >"Involuntary service is a form of slavery. When 'service' is required, >it's >not service. It's not volunteerism. It's not helping the person learn >the >joy of helping others; it's teaching them that service is just another >one >of those things you have to do.... It's another way to hide the failure >of >government welfare programs. They are telling us that we are not >intelligent enough to serve in a way of our choosing. Theirs is >better."-- >Christianne Salisbury > >"Yes, I can see them quite clearly, four fingers, not three, not five. I >only have to doublethink to see that Freedom is Slavery. I admit that in >the past I thought that it is better if people do it because they feel >in >internal urge to do it, rather than an external one. I admit that I used >to >believe that is such circumstances the overall level of happiness is >much >greater, both parties deriving benefit and satisfaction from the act of >service, rather than only one of them - that on the receiving end. I >admit >that in the past I would try to set an example by helping out with >community projects. I would even grant that I used to enjoy doing the >service. In the very extreme, I confess that I derived pleasure when >other >people joined in, seeing me work for no material reward, not reproaching >those that didn't (there being more work left for me to be able to do). >But >now, dear Big Brother, thanks to doublethink, I have lost these >misconceptions. And my Ignorance has become my Strength."-- Petr Barton > >"Freedom. We all think we understand why this word is so important. In >the >back of our minds, we know (or have heard) that freedom is the most >vital >component of the ideology upon which we have built the United States. >But >to many of us, in an age far-removed from the time of George Washington, >'freedom' has become largely an abstraction. We do not necessarily >understand that freedom is a principle, and that for any principle to be >of >value, it must not be compromised."-- Sean Nicholson > >'These liars, fakes, tramplers of others' liberty, don't trust us enough >to >reach these goals ourselves; they don't believe we're capable of >compassion, love or generosity. So instead -- true to their Might Makes >Right and Means Justified By The End philosophies -- they, of course, >decide to force us to 'do the right'. Those who aren't outraged and >disgusted by this are either one of them, or not paying attention."-- >Simmon Keith > >"Even those who support volunteerism, myself included, must recognize >the >danger of forcing our ideals on others. Any noble endeavor, as a choice, >is >an honor and a privilege to perform; as a mandate, it becomes merely a >chore. What joy is to be found in that?"-- Martha Bullock > >"Volunteering is an essential way to show your responsibility in life. I >f >you are forced in to such a responsible act, it is called a chore. You >can >not get anything out of the experience unless, you volunteer >willingly."-- >Sarah McIntosh > >"Clinton also praised Maryland for requiring high school students to >'volunteer' a certain number of hours before they graduated, and >suggested >that other states emulate this and force not only high school students, >but >also middle school and elementary school students into servitude. This >makes me wonder about child labor laws. I do not understand why it is >immoral for a child to work and receive compensation for this work, yet >somehow moral for the same child to be forced to work without pay."-- >Stephen Friedman > >"A school's business is to educate. However, the educational value of >being >free labor for the state is rather questionable, wouldn't you think? Is >this policy totally devoid of educational value? Of course not! It >teaches >the student that he is living in a truly Orwellian country, where his >Constitutional rights can be signed away by the flick of a school board >member's pen and a wink from Bill Clinton. An invaluable lesson, >surely."-- >Nick Ness > >"I think that our governments have a little explaining to do on the >subject >of violation of human rights. I have composed a little questionnaire for >any of the legislators responsible. > >Would you justify compulsory community service for adults (assuming they >have not performed any criminal acts)? If not, why not? (clue: do you >think >it might violate a human right, or one of the Constitutional >Amendments?) >Why do you feel that this reasoning/amendment does not apply to >children? >Community service is now used as a punishment for criminals. so if it is >not 'involuntary servitude', why is it being used to punish criminals? >And >if it is involuntary servitude, why is it being used on innocent >children? > >You can't have it both ways."-- Nick Lockwood > >"It has been claimed that requiring everyone to perform volunteer >service >will teach responsibility. This is the exact opposite of what it will >teach. Responsibility is something you learn by having a goldfish. You >have >complete control over your fish's life. You choose whether or not to >feed >it and keep it clean. If you are responsible, you will choose to care >for >your little finned companion. If you aren't, the goldfish will be >discovered upside down at the top of the fishbowl one morning, and you >won't get another one until you're a bit more responsible."-- Michael >Hohensee (Entry # 1) > >"This act may ironically end up harming those which it would be helping, >however. Consider a high school student from a poor family. This student >has a job that he uses to help support his family after his father left >home. But with a job, this student doesn't have the time to complete his >service hours. He has to choose whether to let his family starve or not >graduate. He would have President Clinton to thank for that."-- Michael >Gaare > >"In this time of idiocy, students must take their lives into their own >hands and refuse to allow the pinko politician and leftist legislator >alike >any control of their time, their effort, their ideas. When (and if) the >time comes to choose your prison, lend your time to an organisation >which >advocates freedom, not servitude. Your life belongs to you, and every >minute that you comply with this legislation is a minute that a >politician >will spend scheming against every minute that remains yours."-- Martha >Coulbeck > > > > "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't." Unknown-Thanks to E Pluribus Unum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Sow the Wind, Reap the Whirlwind-Bosnia Date: 29 Aug 1997 22:27:57 -0500 First the Sowing Bosnian Serb divisions part of U.S. strategy, official says 08/28/97 By Richard Whittle / The Dallas Morning News WASHINGTON - The United States is fostering a split between the leaders of Bosnia's Serbs as part of a new strategy to win compliance with the Balkan peace accords, a top U.S. official said Wednesday. Robert S. Gelbard, the State Department official in charge of U.S. efforts to implement the peace accords, said the strategy was aimed at wresting control of the Serb republic's media, army and police from those loyal to strongman Radovan Karadzic. "The basic pillars of any totalitarian society are control of the media, the army and control of the police," Mr. Gelbard said. NATO-led troops in the Stabilization Force, known as SFOR, have the Serb military under control, he said, and are beginning to gain control of the republic's police under a new order issued by SFOR's commander. He also said Western officials have authority to curtail what he called "inflammatory, incendiary" television broadcasts by the Karadzic-led faction of Serbs. Recent Serb broadcasts have compared SFOR to the German SS of World War II. Mr. Gelbard declined to say how Western officials might prevent such broadcasts. But he added that an increasingly bitter rivalry between the Karadzic faction, based in the Sarajevo suburb of Pale, and forces in the city of Banja Luka led by the Serb republic's president, Biljana Plavsic, suggests that the U.S. strategy is working. "We think they're in disarray," he said of the faction led by Mr. Karadzic, a former psychiatrist indicted on war crimes charges by an international tribunal for his actions as president of the Serb republic during Bosnia's civil war. "We're seeing a lot of divisions develop," Mr. Gelbard said in an interview with a group of newspaper reporters. "We have made a conscious effort . . . when we saw the possibility of some daylight between Banja Luka and Pale ... to develop that." Mr. Karadzic was officially removed last year as president of the Republika Srpska at the behest of Western officials angered by his refusal to honor the peace accords reached in 1995. The accords call for a single Bosnia-Herzegovina in which power is shared by the Serb republic and a federation of Muslims and Croats, the ethnic groups Mr. Karadzic's regime sought to expel during the war. Mr. Karadzic appointed Ms. Plavsic as his replacement but continued to run the republic, in part through his control of commerce in the economically destitute Serb region. But in a televised speech July 2, Ms. Plavsic - an ardent Serb nationalist - openly broke with Mr. Karadzic. She denounced rampant corruption and demanded the resignation of her former mentor's hand-picked interior minister. Since then, Ms. Plavsic has ordered the Karadzic-dominated Serb assembly dissolved. Her forces - backed by SFOR - have taken over five police stations in Banja Luka. And she has engaged in a propaganda war with the Karadzic faction using a television transmitter she controls. Ms. Plavsic also wants to hold elections for a new Serb assembly in October, Mr. Gelbard said, to replace the Karadzic-dominated group that meets in Pale - and has declared Ms. Plavsic's presidency invalid. Russia, historically a Serb ally and one of four guarantor nations of the peace accords, has objected to the elections plan. But Mr. Gelbard said he would meet in Moscow on Thursday and Friday with Russian officials to try to win their backing for the voting. "We do not recognize at all any of the actions taken by this illegal assembly," Mr. Gelbard said of the legislature in Pale. Mr. Gelbard said he was frustrated by Ms. Plavsic's refusal thus far to support the arrest of Mr. Karadzic and his extradition to the United Nations criminal tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. But he said she had taken other actions to implement the peace accords, such as allowing some Muslim war refugees to return to their homes. She also "has been saying publicly, as well as privately, all the right things," he added. Marshall Harris, who resigned from the State Department in 1993 in protest of U.S. policy in Bosnia, said U.S. officials were naive to expect Ms. Plavsic to help construct the united, multiethnic Bosnia envisioned in the peace accords. "The only difference between Karadzic and Plavsic is that she wants to get a separate, partitioned state through the Dayton accords," said Mr. Harris. Paul R. Williams, an American who advised the Bosnian government at the peace talks in Dayton, Ohio, said the administration's "policy should be to support Plavsic, but that's not going to lead to peace in Bosnia. The whole crowd has to be removed." "On the one hand, you have Radovan Karadzic, who's a war criminal and an ultra-nationlist. Plavsic is just an ultra-nationalist," Mr. Williams said. "She believes that she can achieve separation and an ultra-nationalist agenda through the Dayton accords." Mr. Harris and Mr. Williams also said Ms. Plavsic was among the leaders who stirred up Serb nationalism and backed "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnian Muslims during the war. Mr. Gelbard said U.S. officials were "well aware of Ms. Plavsic's background during the war, her speeches, her rhetoric." But "I've had many discussions with her. She clearly regrets - I think enormously - the things she did say. "She has manifested in every way possible, so far, her strong desire to seek a single ... democratic nation of Bosnia," he said. -------------- And then the Whirlwind. --------- X-From_: joe.sylvester@ti.com Fri Aug 29 19:41:01 1997 Posted-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 19:41:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: sylvest@skass1.dseg.ti.com U.S. troops caught in Serb strife Several hurt in melee as soldiers fend off mobs 08/29/97 Associated Press BRCKO, Bosnia-Herzegovina - U.S. troops became more deeply embroiled Thursday in a violent power struggle among Bosnian Serbs, firing tear gas and warning shots to fend off rock-hurling Serb mobs. An American soldier was injured in the clash, one of the most serious involving NATO peacekeepers since the Bosnian war ended. Several civilians also were wounded in the melee. Roving mobs smashed the cars of international officials and roughed up foreign reporters. As NATO helicopters clattered overhead, U.S. soldiers in full battle gear - the main component of NATO forces in the region - tried to maintain calm. Thursday's violence stemmed from the feud pitting Serb President Biljana Plavsic against supporters of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serbs' wartime leader, who is now sought by an international tribunal as its No. 1 war crimes suspect. NATO said it moved into Brcko, Bijeljina and Doboj to "deter the outbreak of violence" after receiving indications that forces loyal to Ms. Plavsic would try to take control of police stations and media in Serb-held areas of northern Bosnia. Its soldiers fired warning shots and tear gas to disperse crowds in Brcko after local police failed to do so. NATO officials said they knew of no injuries caused by their forces. In addition to U.S. troops, lesser numbers of Russian, Nordic and Polish peacekeepers patrol the region. NATO has sided increasingly with Ms. Plavsic, the Bosnian Serb republic's elected leader - and the only senior Bosnian Serb official who will honor the 1995 Dayton peace accords - but said it also aims to prevent violence between the two factions. But the peace force actions Thursday only fueled Serb anger. The pro-Karadzic premier, Gojko Klickovic, told a rally of 3,000 in Brcko that Serbs had accepted the force "as people and as democrats ... but what they are doing is not within their mandate." "We won't give them Karadzic," he proclaimed. Momcilo Krajisnik, Mr. Karadzic's closest aide and the Serb member of the tripartite Bosnian presidency, issued a veiled warning to the NATO force. He told a rally in Bijeljina that NATO's commanders must open communications with the Karadzic leadership in Pale, east of Sarajevo. "Otherwise, I'm afraid, the situation will be very hard to control," he said. Relations between the peace force and Karadzic loyalists have worsened markedly as international pressure has mounted to bring indicted war crimes suspects to justice. Last month, British troops killed one suspect and arrested another - and Serbs retaliated with attacks against the force and other foreign agencies. The police, media and the military have broken into hostile camps loyal to the dueling political leaders. Bosnian Serb sources said several U.S. soldiers were hurt in a clash in the eastern village of Celopek that left cars burning. NATO officials did not confirm that. The worst unrest was in Brcko, where NATO said a U.S. soldier was hit in the eye and had his nose broken. U.N. police said 40 employees were evacuated - under NATO guard - from their main station in Brcko after it was attacked by Serbs. Three officers were slightly injured, U.S. spokesman Liam McDowall said. Dr. Dragan Ninkovic at Brcko hospital said several civilians were admitted with bullet wounds, but none was serious. The hostile reception given the NATO troops appeared at least partially orchestrated by Karadzic loyalists, with pro-Karadzic radio stations urging crowds to take to the streets in Brcko and Bijeljina after peace force soldiers arrived at the towns' police stations overnight. Police at the stations were believed to be loyal to Mr. Karadzic. About 100 people massed in front of the main police station in Bijeljina, close to the border with Serb-led Yugoslavia. Police officers blanketed the town, and people used tractors to block the streets - apparently hoping to stave off peace force movement. Brcko sits astride a narrow Serb-held corridor, the only link between the two halves of Serb-held territory. Ms. Plavsic controls the western section from her base in Banja Luka. Mr. Karadzic controls the east from Pale, a village just east of the capital, Sarajevo. Ms. Plavsic, expelled from the main, pro-Karadzic party, formed her own political organization on Thursday. She said her Serb National Association of the Serb Republic would serve the people and broaden political views. In another rally in Sokolac, near Pale, Mr. Krajisnik told a rally of several thousand that "Plavsic is not acting of her own accord." "We do not wish to sharpen our relations with the international community and ... [the peace force] but the occupation of Serb police stations or tearing Republika Srpska in two parts will not be allowed," he said. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Proof: The Real Aim of "Backround Checks" Date: 30 Aug 1997 07:29:20 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:03:37 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Proof: The Real Aim of "Backround Checks" > >Bang Says: If anyone ever had any questions as to the true aim of "gun >control," they certainly may be answered by events happening in >Illinois. Unable to pass a ban on the private ownership of firearms in >this state, Governor Jim Edgar and his lacky State Police Field Marshall >Terry Gainer, have launched a comprehensive program to harrass people >who make legal purchases of firearms. Bottom line is, if your FOID card >activity indicates that you purchased more than a couple of firearms in >a 12 month period, you risk a knock on your door by the State Police >and/or the ATF. From there, they try to gain entry into your home and >find some excuse to confiscate your firearms and toss you in jail. >Although it is technically legal to own firearms in Illinois, the powers >to be are going to make sure that life is miserable for law abiding >firearm owners. > >Bang Continues: The original intent of the FOID card was to prevent >prohibited persons from purchasing firearms. When first introduced, >proponents of the FOID promised up and down that the "instant check" >would be the extent of the program. Now, we see that the FOID is being >used as means of bothering folks. The news story below is a clear >indication of the powers the State Police feel they have under the >instant check, can you imagine what they'd do with "registration and >licensing?" > > >XXXXXXXX > > >80 FIREARMS, AMMO SEIZED IN EVANSTON > >MAN IS CHARGED AFTER CACHE FOUND IN HOME > >By Mark S. Warnick, Tribune Staff Writer >Web-posted Thursday, August 28, 1997; 6:01 a.m. CDT > >A 38-year-old Evanston machinist whose basement bedroom housed >a vast cache of weapons and ammunition was charged Wednesday >with two felonies, authorities said. > >In searching the man's home and workplace, police said they found >80 firearms and 50,000 rounds of ammunition. > >Martin P. Macejak, of 2143 Pioneer Rd., was charged with unlawful >possession of metal-piercing bullets and with defacing a firearm for >making a serial number unreadable, according to a spokeswoman for >the Cook County state's attorney's office. Investigators offered no >explanation about what, if anything, Macejak planned to do with the >weapons. > >"Your own imaginations can go in any direction," Evanston Police >Chief Frank Kaminski said. > >The investigation is ongoing. > >Authorities said they seized the firearms and ammunition, along with >five inactive grenades, on Tuesday night. They displayed the >weapons, including one .50-caliber sniper's rifle with a night scope, at >a news conference Wednesday--but conceded the guns appeared to >have been purchased legally. > >"Whether they're still legal, we'll find out," said Evanston Police >Cmdr. Dennis L. Nilsson, alluding to possible modifications to the >weapons. Officials plan to examine each weapon. > >Evanston officials also said Macejak had violated the city's ordinance >prohibiting possession of a handgun, a misdemeanor, although no >such charges were filed Wednesday. > >The investigation is being conducted by the Evanston Police >Department, Illinois State Police and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, >Tobacco and Firearms. > >Police said Macejak was taken into custody without incident at his >workplace, Frank's Maintenance and Engineers, 941 Pitner Ave., >Evanston. On Wednesday no one answered the door or phone at the >business, located in an industrial area. > >Police said most of the weapons and ammunition were confiscated >from Macejak's basement bedroom at his home, where he lives with >his parents. Investigators also said they seized more than 75 videos >and at least three dozen books on subjects ranging from exotic >weapons and homemade bombs to survivalist techniques and >anarchy. > >Among the books found in Macejak's bedroom were "The Poor >Man's James Bond," "How to Make Disposable Silencers" and >"Kitchen Improvised Fertilizer Explosives." > >Evanston police said Macejak had been under investigation for about >a month after officers learned that he had purchased large quantities >of firearms at Shore Galleries, a Lincolnwood gun broker. About 85 >percent of Shore's customers work in law enforcement. > >Police said the weapons seized Tuesday night included 34 handguns. >About 10 of the weapons were confiscated at Macejak's workplace, >police said. At his home, investigators also found several containers >of black powder, which they said could be used to manufacture >bullets and other weapons. > >The seized grenades were incapable of exploding, police said. > >Evanston police Sgt. Bob McCarthy said Macejak, scheduled for a >bond hearing on Thursday in Skokie, cooperated with investigators >and gave them permission to search his bedroom. Some guns were in >lockers, while others were scattered throughout the room, he said. > >"It looked like a messy kid's room," McCarthy said. > >Outside Macejak's house Wednesday, neighbors expressed disbelief >that a home on their quiet block contained dozens of guns. They said >he kept to himself even while walking his dog. > >"It's very upsetting," said Andrea Davies, 31, who lives across the >street. "I live here expressly for the neighborhood." > > "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't." Unknown-Thanks to E Pluribus Unum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS Date: 30 Aug 1997 12:42:07 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:37:07 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS > >QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS > Americans have a right to know the exact >position taken by those representing them in government. >We keep spouting off about Congress not following the >Constitution, but have Americans ever made an attempt at >pinning down their Congress person's position with >specific questions? Not often; and never completely. > To that end, we offer suggestions for ten >Constitutional questions that should be put to each >Member of Congress, as well as to all candidates for >Congress. Inform them that the reply you receive will be >your guide in next year's election. >------------------- > Do you still support our United States >Constitution, as written, and all of the Amendments to >our Constitution, as per your Oath of Office? > Do you believe that American citizens have a >right to expect that every elected official obey and >support our United States Constitution in its entirety? > What recourse do you believe American citizens >should have when a public official acts, or proposes a >law, contrary to the American Rule of Law, as set down >in our United States Constitution? Please explain. > Do you believe that all branches of government, >including regulatory and tax collection agencies, should >support and obey our United States Constitution? Please >explain under what authority you may feel that a >government agency could be immune from the rules set >down for government by our Constitution. > Do you support the right of an American citizen >to protect life, family and home against all intruders, >with the exception of officials having a duly sworn >warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment to the United >States Constitution? If not, please describe two basic >situations where you believe the Fourth Amendment no >longer applies, and why. > Do you support the right of an American citizen >to move around and function in society as they please, >unimpeded by any government agent, so long as they do not >bother other citizens with their activities? What >restrictions to personal liberty do you support, and why? > Do you support the right of American citizens >to acquire, keep and if necessary to defend, real and >personal property free from restriction by the federal >government? If not, please explain under what >Constitutional authority the federal government may >restrict the use of personal and private property. > What exceptions do you support to the Bill of >Rights, and how may these exceptions be justified under >the law without amending the Constitution? > Are there any areas of human behavior or >activities that cannot be regulated by the federal >government? If so, please list any ten that come to mind. > Will you certify that you will reject any bill >coming before you that does not conform, strictly, to the >United States Constitution as written? Furthermore, will >you work to repeal all laws, rules, regulations and >executive orders not conforming to the written words >and intent of the Constitution? > > > > > > Heads Up > > A Weekly edition of News from around our country > > August 29, 1997 #50 > > by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net > > "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't." Unknown-Thanks to E Pluribus Unum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Answer - Constitutional Prohibition (fwd) Date: 30 Aug 1997 12:04:22 PST On Aug 29, Freedom Fighter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Recently I posted to my friends, to pdml, and to fap (I think) the following claim to rights and statement: -------------------my original post begins------------------- X-Sender: frdmftr@pop.primenet.com I have heard on many, many occasions that defendants in criminal court actions are unable to defend themselves effectively because the presiding judge states that raising constitutional issues and claiming constitutional rights will not be tolerated in his court. I claim my right to be secure from the jurisdiction of any court judge, federal or otherwise, who refuses to allow constitutional issues, including but not limited to my claim to any right, to be raised in his court. This judicial attitude is utter crap and must not be allowed to continue. It is itself grounds for appeal. That being said, can anyone offer any explanation or legal background for this judicial prohibition of the U.S. Constitution in the courts? Has anyone appealed this kangaroo court attitude? What were the results? -------------------my original post ends------------------- As I half expected, I received about a dozen replies, all claiming some secret or not-so-secret government plot to deprive us of our rights by placing us under "federal" jurisdiction, or by invoking the War Powers Act, or because we failed to claim our rights as "whites", or some other equally useless nonsense. None provided any judicial citation supporting the concept that we have no access to the Constitution of the United States when a defendant in federal court. The answer to the above question was right under my nose all along, and I already knew of it -- though I admit to not having thought of it when I posted the question. The following holding applies specifically to the Fifth Amendment, though I see no reason why the federal judicial system would not apply it equally to all inherited and unalienable rights. Given the ignorance of the populace as to law, it would be of great benefit to government for them to do so: U.S. vs. JOHNSON 76 F Supp 538: "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerant claimant in person." The answer to my question, then, is simple: The judge has a perfect right to exclude issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution from his court because the defendant is represented by legal counsel and has nothing to say for himself. Legal counsel can plead statute, but cannot plead rights. Anything a defendant represented by legal counsel has to say must be said through his counsel. In other words, to put it simply, the defendant has no rights, Constitutional or otherwise, unless he has the moxie to claim his rights AS A BELLIGERANT CLAIMANT IN PERSON. I sure wish Charles Knight knew that. And a few others. Defenders and supporters of recently set-upon patriots take note and pass the word. -- Donald L. Cline, a.k.a. Freedom Fighter ===================================================== If the Federal Government will not recognize, after the year 2005, any personal identification not bear- ing a digitized fingerprint and/or other digitized information of a private nature, perhaps the people of America, who are the rightful and lawful masters of government, should stop recognizing the Federal Government. -- Donald L. Cline, 7/23/97 ===================================================== If individuals have no right to keep and bear arms, then society cannot defend the right of free speech or free press or any other right against the mere whim of any superior force. (Media, take note.) -- Donald L. Cline, 7/27/97 ===================================================== I'll be your huckleberry. -- Doc Holliday, 1851-1887 ===================================================== All private e-mail should be encrypted. If we want the right to privacy, we have to exercise it. New (certified) key: -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzFy+ZUAAAEEALPVoVAAP6owI7YpVzbfZC110ajm/35jUYOPft0ClvCtaQCX 9DN0SqNXNePTdy+UScAnW7iQo6lRfVgf1d6qAitMKROyakLw23kEQg97lBRjLuTk KohayiBEHfZNBfHOZEup60amKdWHI56MdSZ85+/nmwp/UsGVE9LtHY/LU4GRAAUR tCZGcmVlZG9tIEZpZ2h0ZXIgPGZyZG1mdHJAcHJpbWVuZXQuY29tPokAlQMFEDQA 03PS7R2Py1OBkQEBMzEEAJ8slyZWgNx2Iw5F0yEbkUWArE6Z1eRgclG6oQJgm4oa ZpPBjEEPUAK16fQ/DkRG7JuY+fO8YDG2IXnaWzBEsJmvdKGqtltLCGOX9QzOQhAM RWKzsSrPt3r5RVUuxYia7qcoXK/J+u7L0ZjeZtYFslcTw63tit3sArA08jrnQNab tCZEb25hbGQgTC4gQ2xpbmUgPGZyZG1mdHJAcHJpbWVuZXQuY29tPokAlQMFEDQA 1B3S7R2Py1OBkQEBsHoEAJLKe5kB5YcaWn5usPMnzMOECeNvy6K5VZYuQcjHQsmk YtbkjoR099B1iSFhKEz4yGcikAUhUouuZI2HzrOGCsT4Rq+r8xe8FEISNle/X3sj OGBEZcr1VGMqoQLiS4NGBZ3w4FZZiAoixzBQ60XRBMQN6OfmUn9a76rP4mEjfbnM tAlEb24gQ2xpbmWJAJUDBRA0ANO70u0dj8tTgZEBAebnBACq1Cc3FUeGa0Ml8mBq ua01hyM5BXplYrPsWgN+HDm9ASjSTvKJMuFEnaRnb2XuiOKmpFkI0jX+b4XMzkxD 2BlG39AhxVuuopA89inPFqMEDnzbBDhJX5puD8VvfQshu+9bgIlEyyAuQaAYXN/a YmQhnoIxsibnsjQ5PtR7GLYhuA== =zGrh -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: GUN-FACT SELF-TEST Date: 31 Aug 1997 09:07:05 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:23:17 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: GUN-FACT SELF-TEST > >[Reprinted, with permission, from American Survival Guide Magazine, > June 1997. Copyrighted] > > >" THE FIRST NATIONAL STUPID-AMERICAN GUN-FACT SELF-TEST " > > by > > Dr. Paul Gallant > Dr. Joanne D. Eisen > > >This self-test was designed to help you decide if you are as dumb as >the medical-politicians of America think you are. The answer to each >and every question has been "documented" in a prestigious medical >journal, somewhere along the way. > > >INSTRUCTIONS > >READ QUESTIONS VERY CAREFULLY - they are designed to trick the >witless, and the truly stupid. > > Here goes. And, of course, good luck! > > > > TRUE OR FALSE? > > 1. Countries with strict "gun-control" laws [e.g. Nazi Germany, Soviet > Union, Cambodia, Canada] have always been, and will always >continue > to be, safer than those with little or no restrictions on private > firearm ownership. > T F > > 2. A gun-owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an > intruder. > T F > > 3. Medical studies prove that less guns equals less violence. > T F > > 4. A gun-owner is 2.7 times more likely to kill a family member than >an > intruder. > T F > > 5. Cities with strict gun-control laws [e.g. Washington, D.C.] have > always been, and will always continue to be, safer than those >with > little or no restrictions on private firearm ownership. > T F > > 6. One million U.S. inhabitants die prematurely each year as a result > of intentional homicide or suicide with a gun. > T F > > 7. Reform of concealed-carry firearm laws, allowing law-abiding > citizens to arm themselves for self-defense, has raised homicide > rates. > T F > > 8. The accessibility of a firearm permits the instantaneous > metamorphosis of a law-abiding person into a murderer. > T F > > 9. Most murderers would be considered law-abiding citizens prior to > pulling the trigger, and most shootings are not committed by felons > or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion committed using a > handgun owned for self-protection. > T F > > 10. There is a higher correlation between suicide and guns than >between > suicide and drug abuse, or hospitalization for alcoholism, or >the > use of psychotropic medications - i.e. drugs which psychiatrists > use to treat their patients with. > T F > > 11. Because of the fact that when women "kill", and their victim is 5 > times more likely to be their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, > or a member of their family, than to be a stranger, the wisdom >of > promoting firearms to women for self-protection should be > seriously questioned. > T F > > 12. A Harvard Medical Practice study in 1990 suggests that Americans > are five times as likely to die from a gun as from medical > malpractice. > T F > > > ANSWERS > > The answer key is really rather simple - if you answered "TRUE" to ANY > of the questions, you are a prime catch for the medical-politicians of > the anti-self-defense lobby. Better hang onto your guns real tight, > because the correct answer to every single question is "FALSE"! > > > ANALYSIS OF TEST SCORES, TIPS > >If you failed this test, don't despair yet - you will be eligible >to re-take the test one more time at a date soon to be announced. >It's clear, however, that you're sorely in need of some tips on sound, >test-taking strategy. > >If you studied for the test by reading material in America's >once-prestigious medical journals, like the Journal of the American >Medical Association [JAMA], the New England Journal of Medicine >[NEJM], the Journal of Trauma, and Pediatrics, you'll need to re-read >that study material, but ONLY AFTER each resource item has been >carefully run through a recently calibrated Fraudulent-Unscientific- >Doctor-Generated-Erroneous Research Detector, or "F.U.D.G.E. Research >Detector" for short, as it is commonly called in scientific circles. >Unfortunately, there are only several of these instruments in operation >throughout the entire country. And, with a burgeoning number of >fraudulent medical "studies" being published on firearms and violence, >the waiting list to use one of these devices grows longer, by the day. > >If you are lucky enough to have access to a F.U.D.G.E. Research >Detector, make sure it is not marked "Property of the AMA". If it is, >the chances are it's a counterfeit - use it, and you're just about >guaranteed to flunk the self-test again! > > > > HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH? > >That's because some so-called medical researchers - the >"medical-politicians" - have sided with the anti-self-defense lobby. >These medical-politicians have betrayed the unquestioning trust many >Americans have traditionally had in their doctors, in order to frighten >gun-owning Americans into giving up their guns. And they've used >bogus studies, published by their willing accomplices in some of our >medical journals, in order to frighten the half of America which does >not own firearms, into thinking that their gun-owning neighbors are >hazardous to their health, and to the welfare of their loved ones. > >In fact, they've used those "studies" to frighten uninformed >Americans - even some firearm owners - badly enough to cause >them to want to swap their liberty and independence, all for a false >sense of security. > > > > GUNS = TUBERCULOSIS, RIGHT? > >In pursuing their political agenda of civilian disarmament, >America's medical-politicians like to speak about guns and >violence - a social and Constitutional issue - as if they conformed >to the medical-model of infectious disease. That might seem >reasonable. >But, only at first glance. > >The medical-school model of infectious disease revolves around >"host defenses", and "opportunistic microbes". A healthy individual >lives in harmony with potentially harmful microbes, all the time. >As long as the host's [i.e. your] defense system is intact or not >overwhelmed, it can successfully fight off these harmful microbes. >But, host defense-mechanisms can be compromised or breached by a sudden >proliferation of microbes, by trauma, or even by procedures and agents >used by doctors for diagnosis and treatment. When host-resistance >drops, the host becomes predisposed to infection, and disease is the >result. > >In short, disease is the more likely outcome in the presence of a >high population of harmful microbes, or in the face of lowered >host-resistance. So, if the population of harmful microbes can be >lowered, disease will less likely be the result. The >medical-politicians >therefore talk about "guns-as-a-virus", and "bullets-as-a-pathogen", as >if guns and bullets conformed to the medical-model of infectious >disease, like true medical or "public health" diseases such as >Tuberculosis, >or Smallpox, or Influenza. > >The problem is, the comparison is flawed! Nevertheless, the >medical-politicians persist in their warped logic, constantly seeking >ways to reduce the number of guns, or bullets, or "pathogens", in >society. They "reason" that, with a lower dose of "pathogens" in >society, fewer people will come down with the "disease" of violence. > >However, we now know that just the opposite is true. The University >of Chicago study "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed >Handguns" by Dr. John Lott and David Mustard - a 3,054-county, 15-year >study - was released in the summer of 1996. Lott and Mustard found >that homes and towns where civilians lawfully own AND CARRY firearms are >far safer places, than those where guns are banned. > > > HARM NOT YOUR PATIENT? > >Not all of America's doctors are bankrupt of ethics, or of logic. >In "Violence in America - Effective Solutions", published in the June >1995 issue of The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, Dr. >Edgar Suter commented: > > "As appealing as the claim may be to some, guns are not pathogens, >and > crime is not a disease. Treating crime as a disease - the essence of >the > 'public health' approach to gun violence - is as illogical and >ineffectual as > treating disease as a crime." > >It was also in that same paper that Dr. Suter whispered a word which >strikes terror into the hearts of most doctors: "iatrogenesis". It >certainly sounds technical, but it means something simple - it means >that the problem was caused by, or was aggravated by, THE PATIENT'S >OWN DOCTOR! > >Iatrogenesis is a term feared, most of all, by the medical-politicians >- for they ignore it the most, preferring to hide behind a smokescreen >of >"guns-as-a-public-health" menace, instead. Commenting further, Dr. >Suter noted: > > "The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study quantified non-psychiatric > inpatient deaths from physician negligence in New York State. If these > rates are typical of the United States, then 180,000 people die each >year > partly as a result of IATROGENIC injury, the equivalent of three > jumbo-jet crashes every 2 days!". [emphasis ours] > > >It is the medical-politicians who very conveniently dismiss or >ignore the fact that, what are euphemistically called "medical >misadventures" account for 5 TIMES the yearly number of deaths >where a firearm was involved- accidentally, OR intentionally! > >While the medical profession, as a whole, must collectively share in >the blame for iatrogenic injury to America's patients, it is the >medical-politicians, alone, who are to blame for iatrogenesis of a >different sort - IATROGENIC VIOLENCE. According to Lott and Mustard, >a disarmed society is a much more violent one, and these physicians >would have us ALL disarmed! > > > THE UNASKED QUESTION > >The mantra of the firearm-prohibitionists - "If it [the absence of >a gun] saves just one life...." - is a familiar, hackneyed chant to >most of us gun-owners. If they insist on continuing to play this game, >it's >high time to demand of the medical-politicians, instead, "How many >lives will it cost"? > >One of the commonly accepted and well-recognized ways in which >the infectious disease process may be prevented - and lives saved - is >through the use of vaccines. Vaccines are nothing more than weakened >or dead strains of the very microbes which cause a particular disease. >The way a vaccine works is that, when injected into the host, the >vaccine >sets the host's immune response into action - and it learns to defend >the >host against the full-fledged microbe by "practicing" on a weakened >version. > >One unfortunate fact of life is that some people become sick, or >even die, from vaccination. But, considering its benefits, the risk >is generally considered worth taking, in most instances. > >Within the framework of the "guns-as-a-pathogen" model, one might >reasonably ask whether a firearm could act like a "vaccine", and >protect you - the "host" - from violence. Or, more generally, does >"inoculation" of society, with the "vaccine" of "firearms", provide the >same risk/benefit ratio as, for example, the polio vaccine does in >preventing that disease? > >FBI statistics show that 15,377 homicides were committed with a >firearm in 1992. Current data also shows there are approximately 1,500 >firearm-related accidental fatalities, each year, and an estimated >18,000 suicides committed with the use of a firearm. The total number >of firearm-related deaths, each year, is on the order of 40,000. The >most accurate yearly estimate of self-defensive uses of a firearm are >pegged at 2.5 million - 1.9 million with a handgun - by Dr. Gary Kleck, >Professor of Criminology at Florida State University. > >Simple grade-school math is all that's needed to tell us that, each >year, approximately 65 lives are protected by a firearm for each one >lost. THAT'S ALMOST 5 LIVES SAVED PER MINUTE! Dr. John Lott had >something to say on this subject, as well: > > "If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun > provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, > 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been > avoided yearly" > >Research Detector, you can still get by with a passing grade without >one - for, all that's really required is a small dose of the smarts, >combined with a big dose of skepticism! Ought to work just about >as well, too! > >This wasn't called the "First National Stupid-American Gun-Fact >Self-Test" for nothing, and if you've gotten this far in our article, >you're certainly no dope! > >The economics of medicine have already taught us Americans that we >must become wise medical consumers. Many of us have learned not to >be afraid to ask "Is this procedure really necessary?", or "What are >the risks of this procedure?", and "How much will it cost?" Most >importantly, we must demand, AND GET, honest answers from those we >entrust with our health and well-being, based on sound, medical science >- not on political witchcraft. > > > THE WRONG SCHOOL? > >You're on your own, now. We've really given you all the information >you'll need to ace that re-test. And, just for that little extra bit >of "insurance", you might want to pick up an excellent resource on the >subject - *Guns - Who Should Have Them*, edited by David B. Kopel >and published by Prometheus Books, New York 1995 - Chapter 5 is >devoted to "Bad Medicine: Doctors & Guns". > >The real targets of this test should be some of America's doctors. >More than anyone else, it's the medical-politicians who need to get >Suter, Edgar A.; "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of >Peer Review"; J. Med Assoc of Georgia; March 1994; 133-148 > > > >========================================================================= > About the Authors: > > Dr. Joanne D. Eisen is engaged in the private practice of Family > Dentistry. She is President, Association of Dentists for Accuracy > in Scientific Media, a national organization of dentists concerned > with preserving the integrity of the professional dental literature, > against the politicization which has corrupted America's medical > literature. > > Dr. Paul Gallant is engaged in the private practice of Family > Optometry, Wesley Hills, NY. He is Chairman, Committee for >Law-Abiding > Gun-Owners, Rockland [LAGR], a 2nd Amendment grassroots group, based > in Rockland County, NY. > > The authors may be reached at: > > > LAGR > P.O. Box 354 > Thiells, NY 10984-0354 > > "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't." Unknown-Thanks to E Pluribus Unum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: "Assault Media Militia" Cause Terror In Paris, France Date: 31 Aug 1997 23:15:15 -0400 (EDT) In the wake of the terribly tragic death of Princess Diana, crushed to death in a high-tech Mercedes Benz as she was being pursued by a pack of paparazzi wild dogs, it has been interesting to watch the "mainstream press", i.e., CNN, ABC, CBS, NBS, BBC, etc., attempt (desperately!) to distance themselves from the photographers and reporters who were chasing Princess Diana and who, after the motor vehicle in which she was riding had crashed, rushed up and snapped photos instead of contacting police and rescue squads and rendering aid to the seriously injured parties in the motor vehicle. Barbara Walters, Peter Jennings, Linden Soles, et al. have all but whined, "We, the 'good media', *did not do this*, the paparazzi did!", as if rabid paparazzi photographers and reporters were not part of the media. Yeah, right. Give me a break. Uh huh. Sure. I made a polite reference today to dangerous "assault media militia." In the wake of this demonstration of egregious irresponsibility by members of the press in Paris, can the "lunatic press" can be trusted with the freedoms given to them, courtesy of the First Amendment? Because the media blame all gun owners for isolated incidents of crime, should it not then be fair for gun owners to blame the media (*every last one of them*) for the misdeeds of the photographers and reporters in Paris? While a total ban on "assault media militia" may not yet be in order, perhaps President Clinton and his pals in Congress should consider imposing "reasonable controls" in the form of "reasonable censorship" on "assault media militia" talking heads such as Boy George Steffie, Bill Press on CROSSFIRE, Eleanor Clift, Carl Rowan, Jesse Jackson, etc. Wouldn't sealing Boy George Steffie's mouth constitute a step in the right direction?" And shouldn't private watchdog groups be tracking activities and movements of "assault media militia hate groups", clearly a threat to the stability of society? If just one life can be saved ... 1. by banning the future sale of all high priced "assault" photographic equipment and accessories 2. by banning possession of telephoto lenses, the weapon of choice of "assault media militia" 3. by controlling and tracking sale of film, and marking film with taggants 4. by restricting the capacity of all rolls of film to ten frames only 5. by banning sale and possession of non-manual cameras of any type 6. by requiring media members to demonstrate a "compelling need" to the federal government before being licensed to own or use any photographic equipment and by disallowing possession of "arsenals" of photographic equipment and accessories 7. by focusing the attention of the DOJ's and FBI's joint domestic counter- terrorism center on the grave threat to public safety posed by "assault media militia" and their radical extremist supporters in Congress 8. by involving Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in a new, unified effort to ban black semi-automatic cameras and to demonize all those persons who would advocate their use 9. by getting Super Prez Wee Willie involved in this new "cause celebre" 10. by working diligently to demonize the "camera culture" worldwide ... then our world could be made safer if the CEOs of all major media groups worldwide were to jump on board and begin to push to achieve the ten simple objectives outlined above. And if millions of innocent media members who had nothing to do with causing the death of Princess Diana and others in Paris have to give up * their freedoms * to make us all safer, well, maybe they can then join the NRA and take up recreational shooting after their Nikon cameras and film have been confiscated and their news reports have been censored by GS-9 bureaucrats laboring in the Secretary of Media Control's (a newly created Clintonista cabinet post) basement offices? (Special note: Please know that I am * not * trying to trivialize the loss of Princess Diana and her companions in the motor vehicle that crashed in Paris. As the father of two daughters, I can hardly imagine how Prince Charles was able to explain to Prince William (15) and Prince Harry (12) what had happened to their beloved mother. A nightmare come true? Absolutely. My prayers are with the bereaved families of those innocent persons who lost their lives in the needless crash in Paris. May they rest in eternal peace in a quiet, beautiful place far, far away from this troubled Earth of ours.) Regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net