From: Subject: PARENTAL EXAMPLE CALLED KEY TO RAISING MORAL KIDS (fwd) Date: 01 Apr 1998 08:27:17 -0600 (CST) -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Friday, January 24, 1997 PARENTAL EXAMPLE CALLED KEY TO RAISING MORAL KIDS =20 BY LISA FAYE KAPLAN =20 GANNETT NEWS SERVICE One hundred years ago, before children were considered "gifted" and "national treasures," parents generally saw their children as little heathens who must be taught right from wrong, justice, kindness, patriotism and good manners. Children, history tells us, were called good or bad; not troubled or conflicted. Developing a moral code, rather than becoming self-aware, was society's prime goal for its young. Times have changed, and not universally for the better, say authors who have produced a spate of books and television programs designed to teach children how to behave, and to teach parents how to instill morality and goodness in their kids. At one time, society took for granted its responsibility to help children develop a conscience, said Robert Coles, author of The Moral Intelligence of Children (Random House; $21). "Now we notice [conscience] is less and less a force in the mental life of our children," Coles said. "Society has stressed cognitive competence of a certain kind. Then we emphasized that elusive quality called mental health, psychological expressiveness, knowledge of one's emotional life. "What are we going to do with all this awareness and competence?" Coles asked. "And for what moral purpose? I think that has not been stressed as much in many homes." Etiquette doyenne Letitia Baldrige takes off her white gloves when she assesses the moral and ethical direction of society. "Our society has been unraveling at the seams," said the author of Letitia Baldrige's More Than Manners: Raising Today's Kids to Have Kind Manners and Good Hearts (Scribner; $23). "I think it started in 1969, with the youth rebellion, the women's rebellion, divorce, free love. It was the great era of self-obsession. I, I; me, me is all that counts." The result? Road Rambos who terrorize other drivers, scofflaws who abandon their children and other responsibilities, ballplayers who spit in umpires' faces. "The most serious problems in the country are people's indifference to standards," said William J. Bennett, former U.S. secretary of education who wrote The Book of Virtues (Simon and Schuster; $30), a compilation of folklore, Bible stories, fables, Greek mythology and literature intended to teach children values. "What you're seeing now is the [social] immune system starting to kick in and react to this virus and say, `We've got to do something,' " Bennett said. Values must be taught in the home, experts say. And today's challenge is to teach parents how to teach morality to children. Coles teaches by example. In The Moral Intelligence of Children, he presents personal anecdotes from his private and professional life -- he is also a psychiatrist and teacher -- that examine good and bad children, and how they became that way. "I told stories rather than come up with lists of virtues," he said. "Let the particular reader fit that story into his or her life. That's the power of narrative." He proposes that children, even infants, have the capacity to learn moral behavior. Even adults, in the process of teaching children, continue to hone their moral code. He calls it "the mutuality of moral guidance." "That is what our children can offer us, and what we can offer them; a chance to learn from them, even as we try to teach them," he writes. Baldrige's book translates morality into behavior dos and don'ts. For instance, in her chapter on "Movie Manners to Teach Your Children," she writes: "Once the lights go down and the screen is lit, it's the signal to keep quiet, not just lower your voices, but keep totally quiet. . . . Think of the other people pres-ent. It should be your mantra in a public place. . . . Don't drape your legs over the seats in front of you, even if the seats are invitingly empty. What you are saying to the world is, `I don't care about anyone else in this place, just me.' " Once, these rules of conduct were routinely imparted by several generations of adults who lived together and taught children correct ways to behave. "When I was raised, we had grandparents living with us," said Baldrige, who grew up in Nebraska during the Great Depression. "We had three generations at the dinner table. That doesn't exist [now]. . . . We need the family desperately." Family is the most persuasive and powerful teacher of morality, Bennett agreed. "If you want children to take morality seriously," he said, "there is no book, cartoon series, lecture or sermon that will substitute for the power of example." ------------------------------------------------------------ =A9 Copyright 1996, The Salt Lake Tribune - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Taxes: Check it out... Date: 01 Apr 1998 09:46:45 -0500 >On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > >> I think you should be focused on the taxes you're paying, as >> they are the simplest, most honest measure of how much government >> is oppressing you. > >Here is an excerpt which relates to this, as well as another thread. >It kind of puts things in the "tax" context mentioned. Speaking of taxes: I think everyone should get Quicken or some other form of computer accounting program for personal use. It automatically does your calculations - and doesn't forget a damned thing. We all whine about the extra dollars that come out of our 1040 and don't say a thing about the dollars that they're getting other ways. Here are examples: 7% sales tax (City of Phila. residence tax 1%, State of PA 6%) State and local tax on electric service State and local tax on gas service Federal, State and local tax on cable service Federal, State and local tax on phone service Emergency Act (9-1-1) telephone fee ($1.00 per phone line, per month) Federal, State and local tax on cellular phone service (it's actually LOWER than the taxes on regular phone service because cell phones are so recent) Federal, State and local tax on pager service Alcohol tax Firearms tax Ammunition tax These are just the taxes that I'm stuck paying that infuriate me. Since I don't own a car, I'm afraid to know what kind of taxes have been imposed for recycling for tires, oil, coolant, power steering fluid, brake fluid, windshield washer fluid, transmission fluid, gas tax(es), tolls, whatever. Quicken will tally up all these taxes and show you what you *really* pay. Of course, it's tons of data entry, but it's probably the only way you'll find to get a somewhat accurate number of the taxes you pay. Good luck - and do it on an empty stomach. Rachel *************************************************************************** * Windows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit * * patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit * * microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of * * competition. Rachel.D@Drexel.edu * *************************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: kclp: TNT weighs in on gun-carry bill Date: 01 Apr 1998 10:26:12 -0700 If you reply, please be careful of cross posted addresses. The Tacoma news Tribune is at www.tribnet.com. -Boyd CLAW pres., WAC photographer >To: kclp@ix.netcom.com (kclp Mailing List) >From: malkin1@ix.netcom.com >Subject: kclp: TNT weighs in on gun-carry bill >Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 09:59:53 -0800 >Reply-To: kclp@ix.netcom.com >Sender: kclp@ix.netcom.com > >Loose gun-carry bill deserves Locke's veto >Tacoma News Tribune >April 1, 1998 > >The 1998 Legislature couldn't be bothered to pass a law requiring >that firearms be kept safely out of the reach of children. > >But it did pass a measure - House Bill 1408 - that would recognize >concealed weapons permits issued by other states. This would let >visitors to Washington carry loaded guns hidden on their persons >without acquiring a permit issued locally. > >Something here doesn't add up. The Washington Legislature presumably >exists to legislate in the interest of Washingtonians. But it is hard >to discern any state interest in HB 1408. A measure that honored gun >permits issued by jurisdictions with laws as stringent as >Washington's would probably be harmless enough. But HB 1408, which >was heavily promoted by the gun lobby, actually seeks to honor >permits issued under rules far more lax than our own. > >Washington, for example, performs an extensive background check on >all who apply for a concealed weapons license. Violent criminals and >the mentally disturbed are screened out. Yet HB 1408 does not require >that out-of-state visitors meet the same standard. King County >Sheriff David Reichert points out that the measure would recognize >permits issued by Montana, Delaware, Georgia and New Hampshire, >despite the fact that those states do not check for criminal records >or psychiatric disorders. > >Reichert and other prominent law-enforcement officers have asked Gov. >Gary Locke to veto the bill. William Hanson, president of the >Washington State Patrol Troopers Association, fears HB 1408 would >make it harder for police to determine whether the drivers they stop >might be armed. Pierce County Prosecutor John Ladenburg says the >bill's wording would make it much harder to convict those who violate >Washington's concealed weapons regulations. > >Supporters of the measure say these criticisms are overstated. But >even if that were true, what's in this bill for Washingtonians? Since >when did we owe this favor to pistol-packing Montanans, Rhode >Islanders, West Virginians, etc.? Locke would be well-advised to kill >HB 1408 and any similar measure in the future - at least until the >Legislature demonstrates as much concern for the safety of Washington >children as it has for the privileges of out-of-state gun owners. > > > > > >April 01, 1998 > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Paula Jones Case is thrown out Date: 01 Apr 1998 16:42:02 -0500 (EST) from AP: Judge Drops Paula Jones Case WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a stunning victory for President Clinton, a federal judge has thrown out all of the charges in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit, an official said today. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: More on Jones case Date: 01 Apr 1998 17:23:09 -0500 (EST) Well, my cynicism level has just gone up another 150%. ``While the court will certainly agree that plaintiffs' allegations describe offensive conduct, the court ... has found that the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault,'' the judge said. Hmmm. Wasn't this a harassment case? Why is the judge talking about sexual assault? Wonder how well the 39-page ruling stands up to scrutiny. Doesn't seem very judgelike to confuse assault and harassment, right off the top, unless she was writing a polemic. Does this mean that I can invite a young woman at work into a conference room, drop trou and ask her to kiss it? After all, I'm not the Governer, I'm not even a manager. Nah, this goes against my corporate training (and personal values, of course) which explicitly said that acts that are outrageous violations of normal standards need only be done once to constitute harassment (the example given was grabbing a woman's breasts). Guess we can't expect the same standard from politicians. Don't believe that the judge's prior relationship with Clinton as his law student might have infuenced her. No Justice, No Peace - (kinda got a nice ring, don't you think?) jcurtis Judge Throws Out Paula Jones Case By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge has thrown out all of the charges in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit, delivering a major legal victory to President Clinton. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Ark., informed lawyers in the case this afternoon. ``All the charges are gone. The suit is gone,'' a White House official said. The judge said that while Mrs. Jones' claims described offensive conduct, it did not meet the standard for sexual harassment. ``The plaintiffs' allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law,'' she said in a 39-page opinion. A spokeswoman for Mrs. Jones confirmed the ruling. ``It's true but I'm not going to comment on it until I talk more to the lawyers. I'm on my way to Paula's house,'' said Susan Carpenter McMillan. John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, which has been financing Mrs. Jones' suit, said her lawyers will take a look at the case and said that ``if there are suitable grounds for appeal,'' they will do so. Wright's ruling comes more than three years after Mrs. Jones first went to court alleging Clinton, as Arkansas governor, made an unwanted sexual advance. Clinton's attorneys had argued that Mrs. Jones had failed to prove she was harmed in her Arkansas state job, and was motivated by politics in making her accusations. ``We all said we'll be very seriously considering about appealing this case,'' Whitehead said. The judge's decision culminates a dramatic month in which the lawsuit erupted into battle of a contentious and sensational legal manuevers. Stepping up the pressure, Mrs. Jones' lawyers released hundreds of pages of evidence about other alleged affairs, included an unsubstantiated allegation of a sexual assault. Clinton's lawyer countered by charging Mrs. Jones' case was ``garbage'' designed to gain sensational headlines without proving her case. As a precursor to her ruling, Wright admonished lawyers about their conduct on Tuesday. Clinton's lawyers had said that even if he had asked Mrs. Jones for sex on May 8, 1991, at a Little Rock hotel room, the case against him was ``veneer-thin'' because there was no proof that she suffered in her state job, as she alleged. Clinton was Arkansas governor at the time. Her employment records showed that she received regular raises -- and Clinton's lawyers said one of her most serious allegations of ill treatment after the alleged incident was that she didn't receive flowers on Secretary's Day one year. ``While the court will certainly agree that plaintiffs' allegations describe offensive conduct, the court ... has found that the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault,'' the judge said. She also dismissed the portion of the lawsuit against state trooper Danny Ferguson, who allegedly set up the meeting during a state economic conference Clinton attended. The president learned of the decision as he was winding up a 12-day trip to Africa. He got a message to call his lawyer, Robert Bennett, and contacted him. Told the news, ``He asked in fact if it was an April Fool's joke,'' said spokesman Mike McCurry. ``Obviously the president is pleased,'' McCurry said. he said Clinton shared the news with his wife Hillary. ``Both of them were pleased to get the news.'' - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [defgun-l] Yet another poll (fwd) Date: 01 Apr 1998 14:14:09 PST On Apr 01, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From: Todd Boyer >To: "'Defgun-L'" , > "'Glock-L'" > , "'IDPA-L'" , >Go vote on this one. The question is whether congress should pass an all >out ban on the sales of hi-cap magazines, or not. I beleive that this >information is forwarded on to our elected officials. > >http://www.netline-to-congress.com/index.htm > >TB >---- >To signoff this list, send mail to defgun-l-request@scifi.squawk.com >To switch to a digest, unsubscribe there and re-subscribe at >defgun-l-digest-request@scifi.squawk.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Apr 1998 14:15:02 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Executive Orders list (fwd) Date: 01 Apr 1998 16:37:47 PST On Apr 1, RHill@MICKEY.GC.WHECN.EDU wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] found this, thought it might be interesting... Roy Hill = = = = THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOVE ALL EXECUTIVE ORDERS According to the United States Constitution, Article 1, only congress shall make federal laws. However, since the "War and Emergency Powers Act" of 1932, every president has usurped lawmaking powers. Their "laws" are called Executive Orders. These executive orders, not our constitution, have been what is governing America. The "War and Emergency Powers Act" enables, that the President alone can declare a national emergency, and become a dictator. The president can also carefully choose their words and declare a "war" on anything to give them dictatorial control. For example, the "War on Drugs" makes it possible to use federal authorities, such as FBI, FEMA,BATF, and the Military against the citizens where these agencies have no authority. A well known example would be Waco. Another example would be hurricane Opal. After Florida was declared a nation emergency, FEMA was here and we were put under Marshall law (restricted to the point of not going outside your door). When the federal government does this, they are going against the constitution. The "War and Emergency Powers Act" is a treasonous act on the part of our government, so the presidents can bypass congress, and do whatever they choose. It also makes it possible to do away with the "posse comitatus" in cases of "emergency". The "posse comitatus" is what protects the American citizens from the military being turned on them. In Germany, the military was turned on the German Citizens. They also had their Gestapo. Now, in an "emergency" the military can be turned on the American citizens. And the Federal Government has their Gestapo (BATF; FBI; FEMA). These Executive Orders have not been widely publicized. If they were the 250 million Americans would not tolerate it. But you can get copies of them. They are all printed in the U.S. Federal Register and have the force of law when activated by a President. You can contact your congressman for information on how to get copies of these Executive Orders, or check your local library. Here are a few examples of some of the Executive Orders and their purpose: 10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the United States; 10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels , minerals, public and private; 10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private, all farms and equipment. 10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways; 11000--Federal seizure of American People for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires; 11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities both public and private; 11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the United States of America; 11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft; 11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances, authority to establish Forced Relocation. Designates areas to be abandoned as "unsafe", establishes new locations for the populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds; 11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private; 11051--Provides the Office of Emergency Planning (FEMA), complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis. These executive orders' time has run out, but they have been turned over to FEMA. (FEMA will be in control in case of "National Emergency") These particular executive orders are outdated. But they have been turned over to FEMA, who can activate them. President Clinton took care of the problem of these being outdated. On June 3, 1994, which was released on June 6, 1994, he wrote one that would cover all these issues. This executive order will be the only thing he needs to enact in order to become a full dictator. It covers all the Executive Orders mentioned previously. The only thing this Order doesn't do, is define WHAT the national emergency would have to be in order for this Executive Order to be signed. Please keep that in mind. Anything can be declared a national emergency for this to be enacted. Here is the summary of President Clinton's Executive Order #12919: Part one of the Order describes the purpose, policy and how this executive order would be implemented. In section 103 of part one, it describes that the federal departments and agencies will be responsible to bring all the things described in this Order about. This means all individual state departments will have no say in what is happening. So it goes without saying that the American citizens will have no say. These Federal departments shall identify the requirements for the "full spectrum of national security emergencies. This includes the "military, industrial, and essential civilian demand". Part of their job will be to "foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors". Section 104 sets up the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to oversee the carrying out of the Executive Order. FEMA has already been "one the scene" with the several "national emergencies" that have happened. (Hurricanes and Floods for examples) When this Order is implemented, FEMA will be responsible to be an advisor for the National Security Council. They will coordinate the plans and the programs to the "authorities and functions delegated". They will establish procedures to resolve conflicts and issues that may come up while implementing this order. FEMA will report to the President on a regular basis on what is going on. Going on to Part Two, the President will delegate authority to allocate the materials, services, and facilities necessary to promote the national defense. The various agency heads that will have designated assignments would be: The Secretary of Agriculture, The Secretary of Energy, The Secretary of Health and Human Services, The Secretary of Transportation, The Secretary of Defense, and The Secretary of Commerce. FEMA will be used to resolve any problems with issues between the various agencies. All department heads will give their findings to the President for approval. We will be going into detail about what these department heads will be doing a little further in the report. In Part Three, they discuss how this will be financed. The Federal Reserve will be heavily involved. Under section 310 they talk about the critical items list they will need to take care of the national emergency. Each agency head will ensure that all the critical components and technology items are available from the reliable sources to "meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency". Part Seven concerns me. It's titled "Labor Supply". It is almost common knowledge now to freedom lovers that there are civilian labor camps on military installations. There are also processing centers where people can be separated to go to the various camps. It will be the Secretary of Labor's job to (a) "Collect, analyze and maintain data needed to make a continuing appraisal of the nation's labor requirements and the supply of workers for purposes of national defense." Under section (c) they are to "formulate plans, programs and policies for meeting for defense and essential civilian labor requirements;". Section (e) talks about the Secretary of Labor determining the jobs and the skills that will be critical to meeting the labor requirements of defense and of the essential civilian activities. Keep in mind that FEMA is the organization behind the civilian labor camps. They are also the organization that will make this executive order go smoothly. Part Nine section 901 is interesting. It talks about the National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER). This is an executive branch composed of people of various parts of the private sector, along with full-time federal employees. Their purpose is to train people in executive positions in the Federal government in case of an emergency that would require that type of employment. FEMA, of course, will coordinate the NDER program activities of the departments and agencies. In section 602 under Part Six we get down to what it means to the average citizen. In the case of a Presidential decree of national emergency, this is how it will effect you and me. The President of the United States, with the help of federal agencies, will have control. We will not be including all the subsections, just the ones that hit the American Citizen where they live. (a) They will control all transportation, "regardless of ownership". This means if they need your car, they've got it. They will control all public transportation also. (b) They will control all forms of energy, which means, "petroleum, gas (natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal.....), atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines)" This means the Federal Government will have complete control over who will have power (electric) and who won't. They will be able to "pull the plug" on us. (c) They will control all farm equipment. Farmers will not have to be part of "the production or preparation for market use of food resources". They did this in Russia. The farmers worked for the government. (d) They will control all fertilizer. This means that any "product, or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements --nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium" will be able to be confiscated by the Government. The reason they have this combination is because it's anything that can be used as a plant nutrient. If you want a garden, forget it. (e) They will control a ll food resources. ALL means ALL. This includes all "commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products that are being ingested by either human beings or animals....". (emphasis mine) This includes all "starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores". That means they can come into your house and take all your food. Period. Catherine Bertini, the executive director "U.N. World Food Program" made an interesting comment in Beijng, China, at the "U.N. 4th World Conference on Women" in September 1995. She said, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that Bribery. We do not apologize." (f) They will control all food resource facilities. This means "plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for production, processing, distribution and storage, (including cold food storage)". They go on to say that it includes "livestock and poultry feed and seed". In other words, they will control anything that has to do with food. (j) They will control all health resources. This means EVERYTHING. They will have control over all "materials, facilities, health supplies, and equipment (including pharmaceutical, blood collecting and dispensing supplies, biological, surgical textiles, and emergency surgical instruments and supplies)". They will be able to come in and take your medicine. (k) They will control all metals and minerals. (m) They will control all water resources. ALL usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States. All the water that can be "managed, controlled and allocated to meet emergency requirements". Not only will they be able to turn off your water supply, they can come and take any water you have stored in your house. How many of you folks knew about this? I find it very interesting that one person, the president of the United States, has the authority to control every person in the country. This Executive Order gives step by step instructions on the complete take over and control of every American. It allows for an immediate large growth in government. One of the main things is it does not show the dignity and individuality of human life. It brings Americans down to the level of domesticated animals. Animals have no control over their owners. Animals have no possessions. Domesticated animals aren't fed unless the owners do it. Some animals work for their owners. Some animals are used in lab experiments for research purposes. Animals are sometimes put to sleep when they become old, crippled or weak. We have had an abnormal am ount of Presidential declared "national emergencies". Each time FEMA has been on the scene. Two instances I know of they have not allowed people out of their homes. (After Hurricane Opal and the flood in Pennsylvania) Could these be practice runs? If you don't believe the se type Executive Order exist, you can contact the capital and get a list of all the ones President Clinton has signed. He once commented, "If congress doesn't cooperate with me, I'll just run the country by Executive Order." He has done just that. Clinton has signed more Executive Orders than any prior president. To get a fax index to the Executive Orders Clinton has signed, you can reach the White House Publications Fax Line by doing the following: Dial (202) 395-9088. Listen for further instructions. When it asks if you know the number of the document enter in 5555. Follow the rest of the instructions and your Index to Executive Orders will be faxed to you. After you receive the Executive Order Index, you can ask for copies of the individual Executive Order by Index number. (Not the Executive Order number.) ? 1996 Paula Demers. This report may be copied and distribute [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Release: cigarette taxes Date: 02 Apr 1998 06:58:10 -0500 >Date: Wed, 01 Apr 98 12:03:36 PDT >From: announce@lp.org >Subject: Release: cigarette taxes >Sender: announce-request@lp.org >Reply-To: announce@lp.org >To: announce@lp.org (Libertarian Party announcements) >X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.8 > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >=============================================== >NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY >2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 >Washington DC 20037 >=============================================== >For release: April 2, 1998 >=============================================== >For additional information: >George Getz, Press Secretary >Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 >E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com >=============================================== > > >New cigarette tax could trigger deadly >crime wave in USA, warn Libertarians > > WASHINGTON, DC -- A federal proposal to raise the price of >cigarettes by $1.10 a pack may not reduce teenage smoking -- but it >will probably leave dead bodies littering America's streets and be a >financial bonanza for organized crime, the Libertarian Party warned >today. > > "This will be the most deadly tax increase in American >history," predicted Steve Dasbach, the party's national chairman. > > "This tax will boost the price of cigarettes so much that >they'll become irresistible to criminal gangs," he said. "This tobacco >tax could launch the second Golden Age of organized crime -- which is >what happened in Europe and Canada when similar tax hikes were >enacted." > > This week, the Senate Commerce Committee endorsed a plan to >force tobacco companies to pay "licensing fees" that would boost the >cost of cigarettes by $1.10 a pack. > > In response, President Bill Clinton urged a larger increase -- >up to $1.50 a pack -- in order to reduce teenage smoking. And 26 states >are considering additional tax hikes on cigarettes. > > As a result, cigarettes in America could cost more than $3.56 a >pack by the year 2002, estimates the Smith Barney Tobacco Research >company. > > But such tax hikes ignore the bloody price society pays for >highly taxed cigarettes, said Dasbach. > > "This cigarette tax hike is a recipe for Prohibition III -- >following the same blood-soaked trail as alcohol prohibition and drug >prohibition," he said. "And, as with previous experiments in >prohibition, law-abiding citizens will suffer and criminals will >prosper." > > What can Americans expect when criminal gangs can suddenly make >lavish profits by smuggling cigarettes? Just look at Germany, where >cigarettes already cost $3.60 a pack, thanks to a 90% government tax. > > * In Germany's capital, "the smuggling of cigarettes [caused] a >surge in gangland-style executions and turf wars [that] made Berlin >streets more dangerous than at any time since World War II," reported >the Washington Times. "Authorities fear that cigarette trafficking is >leading to crime empires dealing in extortion, prostitution, stolen >cars, drugs, and weapons." > > * "People are being executed in cold blood in their apartments >and in broad daylight on the streets, on subway platforms, in front of >hundreds of witnesses," said Detlef Schade, a police detective in >Berlin. > > * "Turf battles between the Vietnamese gangs that control >street-level sales have been blamed for the deaths of 40 Vietnamese, 15 >in Berlin alone [in 1996]," reported USA Today. These killings are "the >latest episode in a bloody gang war over Berlin's lucrative trade in >smuggled cigarettes." > > Why the brutal battles? Because a single truck "loaded with >50,000 cartons can net a smuggler $550,000" in profits, said USA Today. > > In fact, all across Europe, high taxes are resulting in a >bonanza for smugglers, reported syndicated columnist Bruce Bartlett. >"One-fourth of the world's cigarettes are now smuggled across national >borders to evade taxes and tariffs," he wrote. "Governments are already >losing $16 billion per year in tax revenues -- a figure likely to rise >as organized crime becomes a larger player in the business of smuggling >smokes. In Italy alone, organized crime is said to make $500 million >per year smuggling cigarettes." > > Or, closer to home, look at what happened in Canada when the >government raised tobacco taxes by 146% -- to 75 cents a pack -- in >1991, according to a report in Reason magazine: > > * "The result was an invitation to organized crime. Mohawk >Indians from tribes along the U.S.-Canada border, biker gangs, and >Asian Triads smuggled cigarettes across the border in boats, airplanes, >trucks, legitimate courier companies, and snowmobiles. By the end of >1993, nearly one in three cigarettes was contraband." > > * "Retailers also [became] victims of a crime wave, as it >became more lucrative for thieves to skip the cash register and head >straight for the cigarettes." > > Even more surprising, despite the steep tax hike, "youth >smoking did not decrease and many officials ironically argued that high >taxes made it more difficult to control youth smoking," reported Erin >Schiller of the Pacific Research Institute. > > By 1994, shaken by the crime explosion and lost tax revenues, >Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretian said the cigarette tax threatened >"the very fabric of Canadian society" -- and drastically reduced the >tax burden, "which essentially eliminated cigarette smuggling in >Canada," reported Reason magazine. > > Even Canadian Health Minister Diane Marleau argued the tax cut >was needed to "end the smuggling trade and force children to rely on >regular stores for their cigarettes" -- where purchases could be better >controlled. > > But Washington politicians seem determined to ignore the >lessons of Canada and Europe, and inflict the same bloody crime wave on >America, said Dasbach. > > "Opportunistic politicians may think they are striking a blow >against Big Tobacco with this tax hike -- but they are actually >striking it rich for criminal gangs," he said. "The biggest supporters >of this new tax are not the Republicans or Democrats, but the Mafia, >the Asian Triads, the biker gangs, and the Russian mob, who stand to >make billions of dollars in black market profits. > > "And the biggest victims of the $1.10 cigarette tax hike will >not be R.J. Reynolds -- but ordinary Americans who will die in the >crossfire as criminal gangs battle for the blood-stained profits that >politicians seem determined to give them. That's the real cost of this >tax increase." > > # # # > >Sources: > >* "Vietnamese crime syndicates smoke with German smuggling," by Erik > Kirschbaum, The Washington Times (February 3, 1996) >* "Smuggling hard to snuff out," by Paul Geitner, USA Today (June 13, 1996) >* "Tobacco Road," by Ed Carson, Reason magazine (February 7, 1995) >* "Smoking Up North," by Erin Schiller (Pacific Research Institute), The > Washington Times, February 11, 1998 >* "When the clouds of smoke settle," by Bruce Bartlett, The Washington Times > (August 28, 1997) >* "Cigarette tax becoming states' levy of choice," by Carl Weiser, USA Today > (March 17, 1998) > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBNSKcz9CSe1KnQG7RAQEnGAP/UYK7w8DYcyLeln/2a6dh3Yoh6Uz9WdmF >5WlGLuMg1ZXHj5QkgYoRekebReGX60bMyivyMLOj+knfs3Pm43moZDliAkSuU9J2 >gCb9qvAXlEXex2McqO12SJxiRjRUNFsEabt85pJ29AUYYQdhnKeKsQff4AD0aHw6 >gyMPaOIIrr8= >=X8xr >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ >2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 >Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 > >For subscription changes, please mail to with the >word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Roll Call Date: 02 Apr 1998 10:37:41 -0500 (EST) http://www.rollcall.com/ Roll Call magazine is offering an interesting service. Enter your zipcode and they'll tell you who your rep and Senators are (U.S., not state). They will also allow you to compose a letter to be printed, or send email, with some formatting. They have a full set of concise bios of the Congress and some other doo dads. If the urge strikes to write, and your browser is fired up, this looks like its worthwhile. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Clinton Float in German parade... Date: 02 Apr 1998 09:50:07 -0800 Here's what they think in Germany (and elsewhere, according to the editor of The Idaho Observer, who just returned from a jaunt to Egypt). >Hi'ya All, > >I just sent Al & Linda Thompson a GIF picture which was sent to me >via email. The picture was taken during a German parade. > >Apparently there were a number of floats in that parade, including >one on which was placed a rather large statue of Clinton hugging >the Statue of Liberty from behind. The statue is depicted as having >rather large breasts. Clinton is grabbing each of Liberty's breasts. > >It would appear that in Germany Clinton is the laughing stock of >America..... > >Also, I've heard via email that in France there is a coffeeshop >who's owner has placed a dummy of Clinton sitting at one of the >tables. Clinton's pants are down around his shoes. > >yeah....Clinton is really held in high esteem BOTH in America >and in Europe.. > >I've placed that picture on my web site on my main web page >which is located at the following URL: > > > http://ww1.iceinternet.com/~leslemke/index.html > > > > Les > - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Your web page - Clinton float Date: 02 Apr 1998 13:33:45 -0500 Les, Why do you have a Nazi flag on your web page? I browsed your page after seeing a pointer to the picture of the Clinton float published on roc email list (cc'd in this message). The Nazi flag is a pretty powerful symbol, bound to arouse a visceral reaction in many people. Is this what you intended? I was pretty dismayed to see an interesting site with an anti-Clinton bias displaying this flag. Maybe your intent is to call Reno and crew Nazis. I suspect, however, that the first reaction of anyone who is on the fence in any way would be to draw the inference that you support: Anti-clinton parade floats and Nazis. Is this what you intended? regards, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tm Subject: Re: NRA Silent on Proposed BATF Regs Date: 02 Apr 1998 11:40:52 -0500 Dear Brad, Your subject line is misleading at best. We are not and have not been silent on the proposed regs. The comment deadline is May 20....We will be commenting as we do on all proposed federal regs. Tanya - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Re: NRA Silent on Proposed BATF Regs Date: 02 Apr 1998 15:30:59 -0500 (EST) I wish you had included a bit of the post you are referring to. I don't recall composing a piece on the topic, though I think I may have forwarded someone else's commentary on the issue. I think I was more interested in the regs than who was or was not commenting on them. bd On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, tm wrote: > Dear Brad, > Your subject line is misleading at best. We are not and have not been silent > on the proposed regs. The comment deadline is May 20....We will be commenting > as we do on all proposed federal regs. > Tanya > > > > > - > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: [Fwd: IP: Please Consider] (fwd) Date: 02 Apr 1998 16:25:52 PST One of the better historical renditions I've seen of an old topic..... On Apr 02, JVS wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Reply-To: believer@telepath.com Dear Listees: Regarding: > Martial-law? Yeah, I guess all those "the government will always take >care of me" types haven't thought of that. The government's immediate >response to y2k will be the implementation of martial-law.... I must address the comments above to provide some clarification for listees before they get all bent out of shape over inaccurate, nonhistorical, undocumented comments. This is lengthy, but I would ask that you take the time to read and understand the documentation of this post. Please consider these matters. They affect us TODAY: Following the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson opposed passage of the Reconstruction Act. He vetoed it, but his veto was overturned. In his "Veto Message of the Reconstruction Act," he explained that martial law was being declared by the provisions of the act and he, to his credit, was opposed to it. Unfortunately, Johnson lost that battle, and the Reconstruction Act placed the nation under martial law rule for the first time in our history. THAT MARTIAL LAW HAS NEVER BEEN REPEALED. Folks who run around worrying about when martial law is going to be declared to "take it all away" don't know what they're talking about. We've been under technical and legal martial law for over a century. Here are Johnson's comments which explain in some detail exactly what the Reconstruction Act was designed to do--and DID do. They are extensive quotes. TAKE THE TIME TO READ THEM, and then I'll show you how this set the stage for Executive Orders and the complete subversion of what we thought was the supreme law of the land: "I have examined the Bill to provide for more efficient government of the rebel states with the care and anxiety which its transcended importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give my assent for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must ultimately rest. ==> "The Bill places all the people therein named under the absolute domination of military rules, and the Preamble undertakes to give the reason upon which the measure is based, and the ground upon which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those states no legal governments and no adequate protection for life, property, and assets; and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits. ==> "This is not true, as a matter of fact. The excuse given for the Bill in the Preamble is admitted by the Bill itself not to be real. The military rule, which it establishes, is plainly to be used not for any purpose of order, or the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment. "I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope, and object, without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive to those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure. "The authority here amounts to absolute despotism. Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England for more than 500 years. It reduces the whole population, all persons of every color, sex, and condition, and every stranger, to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this Bill gives. "This Proposition is perfectly clear that no branch of the federal government, executive, legislative, or judicial, can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic laws of the union. Outside of the Constitution, we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it, we have only so much as that instrument gives us. "This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of the states which are within the union, but shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all. "When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, he may deal with them according to his pleasure because he had that power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he must still govern according to law. "This is a Bill by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the states either war or insurrection. The laws of the states and of the federal governments are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection--none of these appear, and none of these, in fact, exist. It is not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is threatened. ==> "We see that martial law comes in only when actual war closes the courts and deposes civil authority. But this Bill in time of peace makes martial law operate as though we were in actual war, and becomes the cause instead of the consequence of the abrogation of civil authority. ==> "This is sufficiently explicit: peace exists in all the territory to which this Bill applies. It asserts a power in Congress in time of peace to set aside laws of peace and to substitute the laws of war. The purpose, an object of the Bill, the general intent which pervades it from beginning to end, is to change the entire structure and character of the states' governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves." [end of quotes] Now, despite President Johnson's Veto Message, the Reconstruction Act was passed, and martial law fell upon the land. It remains in effect over the citizens of the sovereign states today through the continued use of Executive Orders, under the pretense of national emergencies -- in the same way that the War Powers Act of 1933 was hustled through to approval...national emergency. FURTHER PROOF: Further proof that martial law remained in effect after the Civil War can be found in the "Congressional Globe" (now called the "Congressional Record"). The following are excerpts from the April 20th through 29th, 1870 "Congressional Globe" concerning H.R. 1328 which established the Department of Justice to CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT MARTIAL LAW nearly five years after the end of the Civil War: "The following bureaus shall be established in this department [the Department of Justice]: a Bureau of International Law, a Bureau of Revenue Law, a Bureau of Military and Naval Law, a Bureau of Postal Law, a Bureau of Land Management Law." Congressman Lawrence then said in the record: "This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all subjects of martial law, and the cognizance of all subjects of military and naval law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the supervision of records. "If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice. "In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving legal opinions to the Secretary of War relating to the status of the states of the union, their right to call upon the government for military protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be limited. The Judge Advocate General will perform duties administrative in their character and almost exclusively so. "But I will state to the House why, in my judgment, no transfer of the Judge Advocate General or of his duties to the Department of Justice has been proposed in this Bill. If this had been done, the Bill would have encountered the opposition of some of the officers of the Bureau of Military Justice and their friends, and so great is the power of men in office, so difficult is it to abolish an office, that we were compelled in the consideration of this subject to leave officers in this Bureau untouched in their official tenure in order that this Bill might get through Congress. "But so far as the Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General is concerned, he is transferred with all his supervisory power over naval court martials and the records and proceedings of such courts, so that to that extent, this Bill accomplishes the great purpose which it has in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government. It is misfortunate that there should be different constructions of the laws of the United States by different law officers of the United States." WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT: These traitors knew they would have encountered opposition from the military with the provisions of H.R. 1328, so they decided to leave the military officers untouched during their tenure, and transfer them to supervisory positions over court martials. This appeased the military leaders, who didn't have the foggiest idea as to what was really going on. Had the traitors fleeced the military of all their powers during their tenure in office, the military would have realized and possibly taken some military action. But as nothing was happening at the hen house, they slept through this entire situation which resulted in an overthrow of the Constitution -- an overthrow under which government pretended to operate in 1933, and under which it continues to pretend to operate today. The traitors were now faced with a very serious problem, namely, what to do with the powers of the Office of the Judge Advocate General when their tenure in office expired. And they solved this dilemma by adding the following amendments, detailed in that same "Congressional Globe": Congressman Jenks: I move to amend Section 3 by inserting the word "naval" before the words "Judge Advocate General". The amendment was agreed to and later Congressman Finkelburg stated: I would suggest the propriety of amending the third section of this Bill by inserting after the words "the Naval Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General" the words "who shall hereafter be known as Naval Solicitor". Mr. Jenks: I have no objection to that amendment. This amendment was also agreed to, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General became known as the Naval Solicitor. Thus, when the existing tenure was over, the new office would have a different set of rules and regulations so that the Bill accomplished the great purpose which it had in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government without the power of the Office of the Judge Advocate General getting in their way. ==> This was a necessary step to bring the President into the position of dictator over America. But they had one other problem facing them, namely, DIRECT ACCESS to the Treasury for the Department of Justice without interference. They accomplished this by the following three sections of the Bill: "...The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government.... "...The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby repealed.... "...The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General...." It is important here to remember that under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the District Courts of the United States are: "...hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise and all such orders and decrees and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act." It is here that we find out that the district attorneys, marshals, clerks and other officers of the courts are under the Department of Justice. That seems an obvious statement, given the state of the nation today. But the REAL PROBLEM -- given the broad scope of powers granted the District Courts under the Trading with the Enemy Act -- is that the Department of Justice is *NOT* a part of the Judicial Branch of Government! According to Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the Department of the Veteran Affairs are *ALL* under the Executive Branch of Government. All of the above departments are under the Executive Branch--which raises quite a few questions about the balance of powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government. How can this be? There is no balance of power under a declared state of emergency. And we've been living under a declared state of emergency ever since the Civil War began, and have been living under a declared state of martial law ever since the Reconstruction Act. This overthrow of the Constitution occurred long before the War Powers Act, and if we are going back in history to find our roots of legality -- and if we stop our search when we reach the War Powers Act -- we are NOT going to succeed in this venture. Where is the separation of powers if the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch? Shouldn't it be part of the Judiciary? The answer, of course, is yes; but it's not. Again, just check Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code. If only Congress has the power to regulate Commerce, under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, why are the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation under the Executive branch and not under the Legislative branch? And if only the Congress has the power to coin money, according to the Constitution, why is the Department of Treasury under the Executive branch? The Commerce Department (from Title 5): "...part of the Executive branch of federal government, headed by a Cabinet member, the Secretary of Commerce, which is concerned with promoting domestic and international business and commerce." To further illustrate the take-over by the Executive branch of government via martial law, the following offices, bureaus, divisions, and organizations are under the Department of Justice. And remember, the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch -- NOT under the judicial branch. The Office of Solicitor General The Federal Bureau of Investigation The Drug Enforcement Agency The Bureau of Prisons Immigration and Naturalization United States Marshal Service Office of Justice Program United States Parole Commission United States National Central Bureau The Office of the Pardon Attorney Executive Office of the United States Attorney Criminal Division Civil Division Anti-Trust Division Civil Rights Division Tax Division Environmental and Natural Resource Division Community Relations Services Foreign Claim Settlement Division Executive Office of United States Trustees Executive Office for Immigration Review Justice Management Division Office of Legal Counsel Office of Policy Development Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Public Affairs Office of Liaison Services Office of Intelligence and Policy Review Office of International Affairs Office of the Inspector General Office of Professional Responsibility; and Interpol -- (Note: Interpol is a private corporation, yet it comes under (in this country) the Executive branch of government.) In my opinion: if the matter of the repeal of the Reconstruction Act and the old H.R. 1328 are not addressed, we will remain in a state of declared martial law. But few people do any research anymore, and even fewer read the results of research done by others. It's easier to fear-monger and speculate. Yes, we are already, and have been all our lives, living under declared martial law. So don't fear the declaration of it. Know that it already exists, and do your preparations calmly and with deliberation and planning. It will NOT take a national emergency to declare martial law, but if people get into a panicky state, the implementation of it could easily, at any time and in any place, become a reality at the drop of a hat. Don't fear. Just use common sense and prepare quietly, peacefully, prayerfully. "Say ye not, A confederacy [conspiracy], to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy [conspiracy]; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." Isaiah 8:12 Have a great day and God bless! Michele ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Japan (fwd) Date: 03 Apr 1998 07:27:28 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- _____________________________________________ Watch Monday, April 6, for STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update Quarterly Forecast _____________________________________________ Global Intelligence Update Red Alert April 3, 1998 Sony's Chairman Warns of Impending Collapse of Japanese Economy Norio Ohga, Chairman of Japan's Sony Corporation, warned today that Japan's economy was close to collapse and that Japan's collapse could lead to a worldwide recession. According to Ohga, the Japanese economy was facing its most difficult time ever. He compared Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto to Herbert Hoover: "What President Hoover was saying then, there are so many similarities with what Prime Minister Hashimoto has been saying recently. Hoover triggered worldwide recession. I just hope remarks by Prime Minister Hashimoto won't trigger worldwide recession". According to Ohga, the central problem facing Japan is deflation, driven by a lack of consumer spending in Japan. Ohga therefore called on the Japanese government to stimulate the economy, increasing consumer spending and stabilizing prices. Ohga has merely stated the obvious. Japan has been stagnant throughout most of the 1990s and its condition is worsening. The Bank of Japan's "business condition diffusion index," which tracks business sentiment has fallen to the worst level since 1994. This understates the problem. The extended malaise of the Japanese economy is wreaking structural damage as time goes on. Both Daiwa and Tokai banks announced cuts in lending to large companies while it was announced that capital spending in general would decline in 1998. As with the United States in the 1970s, the decline in the availability of capital triggered by the banking crisis means an increasingly aging and less efficient industrial plant. As this happens, Japan's exports become less competitive, increasing pressure on the yen. As the yen declines, the willingness of investors to invest in yen denominated paper declines, increasing the capital crisis. The obvious answer is to stimulate the economy, as Ohga suggested. But Japan's financial condition is much worse than the U.S. condition in the early 1980s. Stimulating consumption must come at the expense of the savings rate. A high savings rate at low interest is now and has always been the foundation of the Japanese banking system. The availability of nearly free money to banks that are in dire trouble is the only thing that permits them to continue functioning. Eliminate the constant infusion of savings and the banking system would collapse and with it the inefficient, linked companies who depend on cheap money to maintain their balance sheet. Increasing domestic consumption is the long-run solution, but as the Japanese bureaucrats understand very well, it is not clear how to get there from here. Increased consumption would stimulate the economy, but only after knocking the bottom out of the banking system. Ohga, who heads one of Japan's more successful companies, is not completely sensitive to the precarious condition of most other Japanese companies. This means that Ohga's warning should be taken seriously while his solution cannot be. Ohga's warning is an important turning point in the Japan story, since it represents a dire prediction from a leader of the Japanese business community, someone who cannot be dismissed as merely a sensationalist or alarmist. If Ohga is worried, everyone should be. The problem is that there does not appear to us to be any way out of Japan's dilemma. This is not the first time Japan has faced this dilemma. During the 1920s, a very similar banking crisis took place. The result was a devastating recession and the emergence of political extremism. Until this point, analysts have been focused on the question of whether or not Japan can avoid economic disaster. It has been our position that Japan's economic fate has been sealed ever since the Japanese government decided to follow a strategy that refused to deal with the emerging banking crisis--that is, since around 1992. Now, Sony's leader has come close to the same conclusion, at least in the sense of facing the magnitude of the crisis. From our point of view, the central question is no longer whether the Japanese economy is facing calamity, but rather what the consequence of that calamity is going to be. One aspect of this is its effect on the rest of the world. We are not certain that Japan's decline will have an enormous negative effect outside of Asia. The second aspect is its effect on Japan itself. Since the end of World War II Japan has been a liberal democracy, a system imposed by the United States. If Japan goes into a depression, it will be a very different country than the prosperous and cocky Japan of the 1980s. With that difference will come wrenching political changes. We urge analysts to study the 1920s in order to get a sense of the possible evolution of Japan, should Ohga be correct. ___________________________________________________ To receive free daily Global Intelligence Updates or Computer Security Alerts, sign up on the web at http://www.stratfor.com/mail/, or send your name, organization, position, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail address to alert@stratfor.com ___________________________________________________ STRATFOR Systems, Inc. 3301 Northland Drive, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78731-4939 Phone: 512-454-3626 Fax: 512-454-1614 Internet: http://www.stratfor.com/ Email: info@stratfor.com Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Fratrum: [Fwd: IP: Please Consider] (fwd) Date: 03 Apr 1998 07:37:18 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- One of the better historical renditions of an old topic. On Apr 02, JVS wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Reply-To: believer@telepath.com Dear Listees: Regarding: > Martial-law? Yeah, I guess all those "the government will always take >care of me" types haven't thought of that. The government's immediate >response to y2k will be the implementation of martial-law.... I must address the comments above to provide some clarification for listees before they get all bent out of shape over inaccurate, nonhistorical, undocumented comments. This is lengthy, but I would ask that you take the time to read and understand the documentation of this post. Please consider these matters. They affect us TODAY: Following the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson opposed passage of the Reconstruction Act. He vetoed it, but his veto was overturned. In his "Veto Message of the Reconstruction Act," he explained that martial law was being declared by the provisions of the act and he, to his credit, was opposed to it. Unfortunately, Johnson lost that battle, and the Reconstruction Act placed the nation under martial law rule for the first time in our history. THAT MARTIAL LAW HAS NEVER BEEN REPEALED. Folks who run around worrying about when martial law is going to be declared to "take it all away" don't know what they're talking about. We've been under technical and legal martial law for over a century. Here are Johnson's comments which explain in some detail exactly what the Reconstruction Act was designed to do--and DID do. They are extensive quotes. TAKE THE TIME TO READ THEM, and then I'll show you how this set the stage for Executive Orders and the complete subversion of what we thought was the supreme law of the land: "I have examined the Bill to provide for more efficient government of the rebel states with the care and anxiety which its transcended importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give my assent for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must ultimately rest. ==> "The Bill places all the people therein named under the absolute domination of military rules, and the Preamble undertakes to give the reason upon which the measure is based, and the ground upon which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those states no legal governments and no adequate protection for life, property, and assets; and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits. ==> "This is not true, as a matter of fact. The excuse given for the Bill in the Preamble is admitted by the Bill itself not to be real. The military rule, which it establishes, is plainly to be used not for any purpose of order, or the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment. "I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope, and object, without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive to those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure. "The authority here amounts to absolute despotism. Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England for more than 500 years. It reduces the whole population, all persons of every color, sex, and condition, and every stranger, to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this Bill gives. "This Proposition is perfectly clear that no branch of the federal government, executive, legislative, or judicial, can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic laws of the union. Outside of the Constitution, we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it, we have only so much as that instrument gives us. "This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of the states which are within the union, but shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all. "When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, he may deal with them according to his pleasure because he had that power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he must still govern according to law. "This is a Bill by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the states either war or insurrection. The laws of the states and of the federal governments are all in undisturbed and harmonious operation. Actual war, foreign invasion, domestic insurrection--none of these appear, and none of these, in fact, exist. It is not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is threatened. ==> "We see that martial law comes in only when actual war closes the courts and deposes civil authority. But this Bill in time of peace makes martial law operate as though we were in actual war, and becomes the cause instead of the consequence of the abrogation of civil authority. ==> "This is sufficiently explicit: peace exists in all the territory to which this Bill applies. It asserts a power in Congress in time of peace to set aside laws of peace and to substitute the laws of war. The purpose, an object of the Bill, the general intent which pervades it from beginning to end, is to change the entire structure and character of the states' governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws and regulations which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves." [end of quotes] Now, despite President Johnson's Veto Message, the Reconstruction Act was passed, and martial law fell upon the land. It remains in effect over the citizens of the sovereign states today through the continued use of Executive Orders, under the pretense of national emergencies -- in the same way that the War Powers Act of 1933 was hustled through to approval...national emergency. FURTHER PROOF: Further proof that martial law remained in effect after the Civil War can be found in the "Congressional Globe" (now called the "Congressional Record"). The following are excerpts from the April 20th through 29th, 1870 "Congressional Globe" concerning H.R. 1328 which established the Department of Justice to CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT MARTIAL LAW nearly five years after the end of the Civil War: "The following bureaus shall be established in this department [the Department of Justice]: a Bureau of International Law, a Bureau of Revenue Law, a Bureau of Military and Naval Law, a Bureau of Postal Law, a Bureau of Land Management Law." Congressman Lawrence then said in the record: "This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all subjects of martial law, and the cognizance of all subjects of military and naval law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the supervision of records. "If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice. "In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving legal opinions to the Secretary of War relating to the status of the states of the union, their right to call upon the government for military protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be limited. The Judge Advocate General will perform duties administrative in their character and almost exclusively so. "But I will state to the House why, in my judgment, no transfer of the Judge Advocate General or of his duties to the Department of Justice has been proposed in this Bill. If this had been done, the Bill would have encountered the opposition of some of the officers of the Bureau of Military Justice and their friends, and so great is the power of men in office, so difficult is it to abolish an office, that we were compelled in the consideration of this subject to leave officers in this Bureau untouched in their official tenure in order that this Bill might get through Congress. "But so far as the Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General is concerned, he is transferred with all his supervisory power over naval court martials and the records and proceedings of such courts, so that to that extent, this Bill accomplishes the great purpose which it has in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government. It is misfortunate that there should be different constructions of the laws of the United States by different law officers of the United States." WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT: These traitors knew they would have encountered opposition from the military with the provisions of H.R. 1328, so they decided to leave the military officers untouched during their tenure, and transfer them to supervisory positions over court martials. This appeased the military leaders, who didn't have the foggiest idea as to what was really going on. Had the traitors fleeced the military of all their powers during their tenure in office, the military would have realized and possibly taken some military action. But as nothing was happening at the hen house, they slept through this entire situation which resulted in an overthrow of the Constitution -- an overthrow under which government pretended to operate in 1933, and under which it continues to pretend to operate today. The traitors were now faced with a very serious problem, namely, what to do with the powers of the Office of the Judge Advocate General when their tenure in office expired. And they solved this dilemma by adding the following amendments, detailed in that same "Congressional Globe": Congressman Jenks: I move to amend Section 3 by inserting the word "naval" before the words "Judge Advocate General". The amendment was agreed to and later Congressman Finkelburg stated: I would suggest the propriety of amending the third section of this Bill by inserting after the words "the Naval Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General" the words "who shall hereafter be known as Naval Solicitor". Mr. Jenks: I have no objection to that amendment. This amendment was also agreed to, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General became known as the Naval Solicitor. Thus, when the existing tenure was over, the new office would have a different set of rules and regulations so that the Bill accomplished the great purpose which it had in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government without the power of the Office of the Judge Advocate General getting in their way. ==> This was a necessary step to bring the President into the position of dictator over America. But they had one other problem facing them, namely, DIRECT ACCESS to the Treasury for the Department of Justice without interference. They accomplished this by the following three sections of the Bill: "...The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government.... "...The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby repealed.... "...The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General...." It is important here to remember that under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the District Courts of the United States are: "...hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise and all such orders and decrees and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act." It is here that we find out that the district attorneys, marshals, clerks and other officers of the courts are under the Department of Justice. That seems an obvious statement, given the state of the nation today. But the REAL PROBLEM -- given the broad scope of powers granted the District Courts under the Trading with the Enemy Act -- is that the Department of Justice is *NOT* a part of the Judicial Branch of Government! According to Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the Department of the Veteran Affairs are *ALL* under the Executive Branch of Government. All of the above departments are under the Executive Branch--which raises quite a few questions about the balance of powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government. How can this be? There is no balance of power under a declared state of emergency. And we've been living under a declared state of emergency ever since the Civil War began, and have been living under a declared state of martial law ever since the Reconstruction Act. This overthrow of the Constitution occurred long before the War Powers Act, and if we are going back in history to find our roots of legality -- and if we stop our search when we reach the War Powers Act -- we are NOT going to succeed in this venture. Where is the separation of powers if the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch? Shouldn't it be part of the Judiciary? The answer, of course, is yes; but it's not. Again, just check Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code. If only Congress has the power to regulate Commerce, under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, why are the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation under the Executive branch and not under the Legislative branch? And if only the Congress has the power to coin money, according to the Constitution, why is the Department of Treasury under the Executive branch? The Commerce Department (from Title 5): "...part of the Executive branch of federal government, headed by a Cabinet member, the Secretary of Commerce, which is concerned with promoting domestic and international business and commerce." To further illustrate the take-over by the Executive branch of government via martial law, the following offices, bureaus, divisions, and organizations are under the Department of Justice. And remember, the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch -- NOT under the judicial branch. The Office of Solicitor General The Federal Bureau of Investigation The Drug Enforcement Agency The Bureau of Prisons Immigration and Naturalization United States Marshal Service Office of Justice Program United States Parole Commission United States National Central Bureau The Office of the Pardon Attorney Executive Office of the United States Attorney Criminal Division Civil Division Anti-Trust Division Civil Rights Division Tax Division Environmental and Natural Resource Division Community Relations Services Foreign Claim Settlement Division Executive Office of United States Trustees Executive Office for Immigration Review Justice Management Division Office of Legal Counsel Office of Policy Development Office of Legislative Affairs Office of Public Affairs Office of Liaison Services Office of Intelligence and Policy Review Office of International Affairs Office of the Inspector General Office of Professional Responsibility; and Interpol -- (Note: Interpol is a private corporation, yet it comes under (in this country) the Executive branch of government.) In my opinion: if the matter of the repeal of the Reconstruction Act and the old H.R. 1328 are not addressed, we will remain in a state of declared martial law. But few people do any research anymore, and even fewer read the results of research done by others. It's easier to fear-monger and speculate. Yes, we are already, and have been all our lives, living under declared martial law. So don't fear the declaration of it. Know that it already exists, and do your preparations calmly and with deliberation and planning. It will NOT take a national emergency to declare martial law, but if people get into a panicky state, the implementation of it could easily, at any time and in any place, become a reality at the drop of a hat. Don't fear. Just use common sense and prepare quietly, peacefully, prayerfully. "Say ye not, A confederacy [conspiracy], to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy [conspiracy]; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." Isaiah 8:12 Have a great day and God bless! Michele ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Japan (fwd) Date: 03 Apr 1998 09:19:51 -0700 " One aspect of this is its effect on the rest of the world. We are not certain that Japan's decline will have an enormous negative effect outside of Asia. The second aspect is its effect on Japan itself." While the potential political effect is an important consideration, I don't buy the notion that Japanese financial trouble could be isolated to Asia. Here in Washington something like 7-10% of our economy is trade with Asia, around half that with Japan. Boeing, our 2nd or 3rd largest employer and a driving force in the national economy has IMHO it's future tied up in options on sales of passenger liners to China. No, if Japan really goes the economic ripples will at least match the political tsunami this could create. All IMHO. Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Japan (fwd) Date: 03 Apr 1998 11:31:23 PST On Apr 3, Boyd Kneeland wrote: >" One aspect of this is its effect on the rest of the world. We are not >certain that Japan's decline will have an enormous negative effect outside >of Asia. The second aspect is its effect on Japan itself." > >While the potential political effect is an important consideration, I don't >buy the notion that Japanese financial trouble could be isolated to Asia. >Here in Washington something like 7-10% of our economy is trade with Asia, >around half that with Japan. Boeing, our 2nd or 3rd largest employer and a >driving force in the national economy has IMHO it's future tied up in >options on sales of passenger liners to China. No, if Japan really goes the >economic ripples will at least match the political tsunami this could >create. All IMHO. Boyd Don't forget that if they go down, they'll be dumping all those US Bonds to try to haul their nuts out of the fire. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: weird government spam (fwd) Date: 03 Apr 1998 22:28:50 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I didn't get this firsthand, but I think it's genuine. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The FBI gets into the unsolicited e-mail business By Joe Salkowski StarNet Dispatches Mon Mar 30 00:00:00 MST 1998 Do not delete this message! You, sir or madam, have been selected to receive, absolutely free of charge, sensitive security briefings from the Federal Bureau of Investigation! Don't bother sending us your name, address or credit card number: We've already got that stuff. (unless we sent your file over to the White House by mistake! Ha ha ha!) Just open your e-mail program and there we'll be, warning you of the latest threat to you or your company's professional livelihood. What's that you say? You never asked for this service? Well, as you know, the FBI has never been in the business of waiting 'til we were invited, if you know what I mean. We just went ahead and signed you up anyway, secure in the knowledge that any Good, Honest American would be interested in receiving our briefings! Of course, you're under no obligation to actually read this material. But our legal advisors - including Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of America - say it brings good luck. Just last week, a man in Rockville, Maryland, who agreed to receive our briefings hit four out of six numbers in the state lottery! Meanwhile, a woman in Miami who asked to be removed from our list was audited by the IRS. Coincidence? Maybe. Then again, maybe you ought to read our briefings. They'll be arriving any day now. Some of you might think this is a joke. And it is, really. But John Bolding isn't laughing. Bolding runs FirstBase Software, Inc., a small Tucson company that received a curious piece of unsolicited e-mail on Friday, Feb. 27. Under the header of "FBI National Security Division, Washington, D.C," it warned of threats issued against Americans by suspected terrorist Usama Bin Ladin. "Although unclassified, this communication should be handled as sensitive," the message read. "This communication should not be furnished to the media or other agencies outside the corporate security/law enforcement/U.S. Government counter-terrorism community without the permission of the FBI." Apparently, though, it's okay to spam it. Bolding, an anti-spam activist, determined after a little digging that the FBI indeed had sent out that message and others like it to thousands of recipients, including many who never requested them. "I consider this the same as people who are trying to sell me electricity, phone cards and sex sites," Bolding said. "If I didn't ask for it, I shouldn't be getting it." The messages are part of a program the FBI calls Awareness of National Security Issues and Response, or ANSIR. Operating under a 1996 executive order to protect the nation's infrastructure from "collapse and calamity," the agency issues regular briefings to high-tech companies and other U.S. corporations that might be targets of terrorism. "We're protecting the economic interests of this country," said Larry Watson, the supervisory special agent in charge of ANSIR. "The high-tech industry in particular is very vulnerable ... it's not prepared to go head-to-head against foreign intelligence services trained in the arts of espionage." To combat such risks, the FBI has turned to the arts of spam. While most of the 30,000 companies that receive the briefings have requested them, Watson said, the messages also are being sent to a bunch of e-mail addresses pulled from a business directory of high-tech firms. Of course, while a real spammer would use a $200 software program to harvest the addresses, the FBI assigned 56 field officers to the task. None of those officers bothered to check whether the e-mail addresses they pulled from the directories - including some addresses based outside the United States - actually led to people or organizations that might engage in international terrorism. But Watson said it wouldn't matter if they did: the information included in the briefings isn't as sensitive as it sounds. "The bad people already know all this stuff," he said, explaining that the person who writes the bulletins tries to make them sound interesting. "I don't want people to line their canary cage with these notices. If the language is such that someone will read it rather than line their canary cage with it, then so be it." So let me get this straight: The FBI has 57 people working full time to deliver over-hyped bulletins to any company that asks and a bunch that don't? How much is all of this costing us, anyway? "I don't know," Watson said, dodging the question. "We've got 56 field agents and me working on a shoestring." Considering the source, I'm guessing it's a pretty big shoe. Watson assures me that many companies find these bulletins quite valuable. He also is quick to point out that only Bolding and one other person have complained about receiving unsolicited bulletins. I get his point: Bitching about a federal program that has received only two complaints is like whining about a spilled mai tai on the deck of the Titanic. But he isn't counting the people who saw the messages arrive unbidden in their e-mail box and simply deleted them along with the rest of the pyramid schemes and chain letters. Watson also hasn't considered the political cost that comes with being linked to spam, a practice that annoys Net users and imposes millions of dollars in unnecessary costs on Internet service providers. At a time when Congress is debating various ways to shut down spammers, the FBI is suddenly one of the bad guys. "They're not selling anything," Bolding said. "But these messages take as much time and use as much resources and cause just as many ISPs to buy more disks and machines to handle incoming mail as the commercial spam. "And we're wasting tax dollars sending out this stuff in the first place," he continued. "So we're getting hit on both ends." Watson, though, doesn't place much stock in such complaints. "I know people's electrons get ruffled when we get e-mail that's unsolicited," he said. "I feel real sorry for them, but come on. The real point of ANSIR is in that 'R' - the response. Getting that personal touch means a lot in our business." Anybody who really wants a personal touch from the FBI should feel free to ask. As for the rest of us, though, they really ought to keep their hands to themselves. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ANSIR EMAIL - DOMESTIC TERRORISM ADVISORY Message from FBI National Security Division, Awareness of National Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) Program, Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Remains the Target of Antigovernment Groups. Although unclassified, this communication should be handled as law enforcement sensitive. This communication should not be furnished to the media or other agencies outside the corporate security, law enforcement/U.S. Government counterterrorism community without the permission of the FBI. Unauthorized disclosure of FBI communications could jeopardize ongoing FBI investigations. In light of recent events, recipients are reminded that the U.S. Government remains the target of many anti-government groups such as the Aryan Nations. Constant topics of discussion by members of these groups are attacks against federal buildings, post offices, bridges, water supplies, judges, law enforcement officers, African-American and Jewish organizations, and the United Nations. Although the FBI has no information to indicate that any violent attacks against any of these targets are imminent, recipients should remain sensitive to this continuing rhetoric by these antigovernment groups. Should information develop pertaining to this matter contact your local FBI ANSIR Coordinator, field office counterterrorism desk or FBI Headquarters immediately. The FBI's Awareness of National Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) Program is designed to develop a nationwide communication network among corporate security professionals, law enforcement, and others on a variety of matters. The ANSIR Coordinator in the local FBI field office is the point of contact for all National Security concerns and questions from U.S. corporations. ANSIR Email is designed to reach as many as 100,000 recipients and represents the only U.S. Government effort to disseminate unclassified threat and warning information in a timely manner to such a diverse audience. ********************************************************* *Special Agent Alice D. Days *Phoenix ANSIR Coordinator *FBI *201 E. Indianola, Suite 400 *Phoenix, AZ, 85012, Voice : 602-650-3096 *Fax : 602-650-3204, E-mail : adays@leo.gov ********************************************************* - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 1911a1@gte.net Subject: NRA ramrods unwanted legislation in MO Date: 04 Apr 1998 18:21:34 CST PLEASE READ, FORWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! Note from Brad Alpert: Chris Behanna wrote the following intro and I found that it could not be improved upon. I asked Chris if I could send this document from my email address because I sit on the Board of Directors of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance and was involved with the decision to unite our Board against NRA's attempt to hijack our years-old effort to get CCW passed in Missouri. In the 7 or so years of our fight, we activists in Missouri have had at least 5 ILA liasions to "help" us in this struggle. Some could work with our legislators, some could not. But until now, we at least felt that we were at least on the same page with our ILA helpers. Missouri gun rights activists have had referendum bills *pulled* by legislators who introduced them in the mistaken thought that this would be a way to get CCW passed here. The fact is that we don't have the funds to fight the inevitable state-funded propaganda campaign that our incumbent Democrat governor would wage against us. And so now, here comes NRA ramming a referendum bill down our throats. We don't want it. We won't tolerate it. We will oppose any effort made on behalf of passage of the bill. Following is the intro Chris wrote and following that, is the letter to the NRA BoD from the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance' Kevin Jamison. Brad Alpert ***** NRA Foolish Referendum Endangers RKBA in Missouri by Chris BeHanna, NRA Life #CPC7725J "Shall-issue" CCW is a hot topic in Missouri at present. For whatever reason, NRA-ILA has decided to utterly ignore the wishes of grassroots groups (and break promises in the process) and acquiesce to a referendum on the topic. A referendum is an infinitely more labor- and money-intensive prospect than a simple bill -- as we all discovered in Washington State last year -- and *EVERY* state grassroots group in Missouri opposes allowing one. In this article, the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance's Kevin Jamison gives you the details of this ILA doublecross. Such doublecrosses are becoming commonplace complaints throughout the nation. In Pennsylvania in 1995, ILA doublecrossed the grassroots with Act 17. In Colorado and Oklahoma in 1996, ILA doublecrossed the grassroots by threatening Vermont Carry supporters in the legislature with F ratings. In Ohio, ILA doublecrossed the grassroots by helping the scuttle the first attempt to pass a "reasonable person" (Vermont Carry) bill. In Georgia this year, ILA doublecrossed the grassroots by pushing a vaguely-worded "safe storage" bill that contained some window-dressing language that said that schools *may* (not "must") use Eddie Eagle in their curricula. ILA then flat-out *LIED* after the bill was defeated and claimed that they had opposed the bill. If you haven't cast your NRA ballot yet, please consider ending ILA's arrogant belief that it knows what's best for you better for than your local grassroots groups. You can do this by voting for the list of candidates attached at the end of this message. Herewith follows the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance' Kevin Jamison's letter to the NRA Board of Directors: The Institute for Legislative Action has told the Missouri legislature that if they vote for a referendum on concealed carry, it will not be held against them. Given that the governor insists on a referendum, this is tantamount to telling them to do so. The Western Missouri Shooters Alliance objects to the way a referendum has been pressed in Missouri almost as much as the concept of a referendum. The Missouri grassroots gun rights groups, through their umbrella organization, the Missouri Legislative Issues Council, were told that no tactic or bill would be supported if we objected to it. Before ILA gave permission for a referendum, it was informed of the unanimous opposition of the Missouri Legislative Issues Council, representing: the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, Northwest Missouri Shooters Alliance, Gun Rights for Individuals Now, Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri, ArmsRight, Missouri Women for Civil Liberties, Missouri Sport Shooters Association, U.S. Defensive Firearms Shooters, and numerous individual activists. The ILA promptly gave the legislature permission to do a referendum. The MoLIC organizations have unanimously voted to vigorously oppose any bill with a referendum. We will lobby the legislature to kill such a bill and notify the legislators that support for such a bill will be considered hostile to the interests of Missouri gun owners. The NRA has approximately 90,000 members in Missouri. The MoLIC- affiliated organizations cannot match that in raw numbers. However, our members are the activists. Our members are the people who carry out NRA programs. There has never been a referendum on such a hot button issue. Unlike all other referendums, a CCW referendum seeks to regain lost rights. It is not defensive; it is offensive. Public opposition is consequently greater. Those of us familiar with Missouri elections estimate that it would cost five million dollars to run a referendum, at minimum. The newspapers are against us; the power structure is against us. Police groups (unlike the Washington state defensive referendum) are against us. We do not have the money or the political power to take such a risk. Finally, a referendum was HCI's idea. The first tactic in their playbook, passed to the Chiefs of Police organization, was to demand a referendum. There is a reason for this: they could win, we could lose. There is not just a danger the referendum will be manipulated, there is a certainty. During the Hancock anti-tax referendum, children came home from school with officially-produced propaganda against it. I visited a prison where propaganda against the measure claimed it would shut down the prisons and release the inmates. Government facilities unashamedly produced propaganda (Missouri has no law prohibiting such conduct in nonpartisan elections). Government officials manufactured news conferences and press releases. The measure lost, and lost big. That is one danger; we could lose. The result would be a referendum demand on every attempt at a new CCW system, improvement to existing systems, and any other pro-gun legislation. The other danger is that we could win, but at the cost of conceding that a fundamental right is subject to a popular vote. The very concept will delay pro-gun legislation. Even if we win, it would be at a cost which would bankrupt the movement. For the first time, the Missouri grassroots groups are advising shooters not to send money to the NRA, on the grounds that we will need every penny in the state to fight this unwise proposal. Win, lose, or wait, it is we Missourians who will have to live with the result. We began this fight alone and have carried it on for seven years. We will fight for seven more or seven times seven. Time is on our side. We do not have to throw everything on one roll of the dice. We do not want to pass a bad bill just to say that a bill has been passed. To pass a bill, simply for the sake of passing a bill, is the act of a politician, not someone fighting for our rights. We do not want to make a deal with the prohibitionists, we want to win. It is the duty of NRA and WMSA to fight for our rights, not make deals. We intend to continue the fight for our rights. For the WMSA Board of Directors Kevin Jamison WMSA Press Officer Attorney at Law Do you want to put an end to ILA's arrogant mistreatment of the grassroots, and of YOUR GUN RIGHTS? 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen David M. Gross* Robley T. Moore Michael J. Beko* John Guest Larry R. Rankin James A. Church Fred Gustafson Albert C. Ross* William Dominguez Don L. Henry* Frank H. Sawberger Howard J. Fezell* William B. Hunt Thomas L. Seefeldt Daniel B. Fiora* Phillip B. Journey* Kim Stolfer Arnold J. Gaunt Michael S. Kindberg* John H. Trentes Fred Griisser Jeff Knox Glen I. Voorhees Jr.* Wesley H. Grogan Jr.* John C. Krull Those with an asterisk have been deliberately targeted to be PURGED as "extremists." What's "extreme" about demanding your rights? Help NRA help you and support these candidates! 2. Visit their web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains candidate statements) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) U.S. mail point-of-contact: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, S.C. 29657 ------------------------------------------------------ | If guns cause crime, | If you want my | | crime, all of mine are | guns, then you | | defective. | want a war. | |----------------------------------------------------- | Support the Chinese | If Charles Schumer didn't | | Underground! Buy an | exist, it would not be | | SKS and bury it! | necessary to invent him. | ------------------------------------------------------ -*-*-* Visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 *-*-*- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: NRA ramrods unwanted legislation in MO Date: 04 Apr 1998 17:38:00 -0700 I'm sure the good folks of WMSA have a better handle on this situation then I do, but I gotta say the repeated reference to "the referendum in Washington State" is confusing. It seems like they're talking about 676, but that was an initiative. Personally, I think Initiatives are the most democratic tool in our republic and I like them a -lot-. I'd much rather rely on the good sense of my neighbors then the legislative "leadership" or our "servants" any day. But, like I say, that's just me and I'm not at all familiar with whats going on in MO. Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: NRA ramrods unwanted legislation in MO Date: 04 Apr 1998 19:12:59 -0800 Boyd Kneeland wrote: Personally, I think Initiatives are the most > democratic tool in our republic and I like them a -lot-. I second that thought. With an Initiative, it's take it or leave it. In contrast, a couple of hundred legislators get their shots at watering down any kind of bill that's proposed in their institutions, so that even "success" is a case of horses coming out looking like camels. Referendum, though seldom used, is equally powerful for killing camels and disposing of stupid/obsolete laws. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: State mistakenly lists two Nashville churches as subversive groups Date: 05 Apr 1998 01:39:06 -0500 (EST) Maryville, TN, _Daily Times_, 3/31/98, p. 5A STATE MISTAKENLY LISTS TWO NASHVILLE CHURCES AS 'SUBVERSIVE GROUPS' Nasvhille - A state report on street gangs incorrectly listed two Nashville churches as "subversive groups" because of inaccurate information submitted by police. Nashville police and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said they "offered a full explanation" for including Rivergate Church of Christ and Grace Community Church in the report released last week. "We are human and we make mistakes," Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron said Monday. The apology was welcomed by Sellers Crain Jr., minister of the 500-member Rivergate church. "We've had calls from our own people, asking what this was all about. It's not good for our public image," he said. The 98-year old church has "never had any kind of problems with drugs or gangs," he said. The report was compiled from responses to a TBI survey sent to 357 law enforcement agencies across the state. It was presented Thursday to the Tennessee Juvenile Reform Commission by TBI director Larry Wallace. The TBI said the churches were included in the information submitted by Nashville police. The report, under the heading "Subversive Groups," said: "Joelton Area - Grace Community Church, also known as Rivergate Church of Christ. Our division has taken photos of their training area, but unable to determine members." Aaron said police had investigated possible paramilitary activity at another church - Rivergate Community Church - after a shooting occurred there. The church is located not far from the other two churches. The investigation turned up nothing, Aaron said. But when the TBI solicited information for its report, an officer working from his memorty of the shooting mistakenly wrote that the church investigated was Grace Community Church, which the officer believed also was known as Rivergate Church of Christ. Aaron said police representatives called officials from both churches Monday and told them what happened. "The Rivergate Church of Christ and Grace Community have nothing to do with anything," Aaron said. Rivergate Community Church was not included in the report. Mark Gwyn, TBI executive officer, said the 400 recipients of the report will get a letter saying the section about the churches should be disregarded. The report went to judges, lawmakers, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and others. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan (fwd) Date: 05 Apr 1998 22:11:15 PST On Apr 05, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Also available on my website, Nation In Distress at: http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ ______ Note this is confirmed as having come from HCI. It details their next line of attack. Mike P 06/08/14 StTN 12:35 FAX Sarah Brady Dear Handgun Control 'Member, I have marked this letter to you "confidential" because I am requesting that you avoid discussing the contents publicly for the next several weeks. This is because we are about to initiate action that, if successful, will weaken the stranglehold that the gun industry, the NRA, and other gun fanatics have over local and national gun laws. And I am urgently requesting you to make an extraordinary gift to help strengthen our cause. Please let me quickly explain our plans -- and then you will understand why both your generosity and secrecy are required. In brief, we believe there is a strong parallel between the gun industry and the tobacco companies! As you know, citizens at the local and state level rose up in anger and demanded clean .. air in restaurants and offices when Congress failed to take action. Here at Handgun Control Inc., it is our regrettable conclusion that this current Congress is not going to take the initiative on gun safety for America. Legislation is bogged down. The NRA and other gun industry lobbying groups have multi-million dollar war chests set aside for this election year. Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to pass any significant legislation this year. And so, even though we will not let up on our efforts in congress, our focus is going to make a dramatic shift. And we want to keep this shift as quiet as possible while we develop our plan. In a few weeks, I will be announcing to the nation: The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking Even the title of this campaign will cause shockwaves to run through the gun industry and the NRA at local and national levels. We will be taking a page from the anti-smoking victories, where local ordinances banned smoking in public facilities and eventually forced state and national legislation to protest Americans' right to a smoke-free environment. And we'll remember the victories in the anti-drunk-driving movement, as well. M.A.D.D. was formed by a small group of mothers whose children had been killed by drunk drivers -- they gathered supporters and strength at the grassroots level around the country, and before long these mothers started to be taken seriously everywhere, even on capitol Hill. Now, most states have tougher penalties for drunk drivers and the liquor industry is providing anti-drunk-driving messages in their advertising. In much the same way, we're going to attack the gun industry and the gun pushers at the most basic point --where money is exchanged for guns. The Attack point: Local Gun Shows! Local gun shows make it extremely easy to purchase a gun for private or criminal use. And that's because most of the guns at the shows are sold by private individuals, not by dealers; and, therefore, in most states they are not covered by laws requiring background checks or paperwork! So you can walk into a gun show, strike up a conversation with the guy hawking the M-l carbine, admire its light kick, repetitive fire, and ability to accept large magazine clips. Then you talk to that strange man parading around in his military fatigues, and later you meet him on the street, give him the necessary cash and the firearm is yours. All legal in most states, as long as that fellow is not a licensed gun dealer! Loophole: The Second-Hand Market Right now, federal laws focus primarily on purchases of handguns from licensed dealers. And the Brady Handgun violence and prevention Act has stopped many criminals from buying handguns from licensed dealers- But most states have no laws preventing one individual from selling a weapon to another, as long as the seller is not a licensed gun dealer. "The individual purchasing the gun does not have to show identification, does not have to submit to background checks. And the person selling the gun does not need to keep a written record of the transaction or the buyer's address and social Security number. Also, quite obviously, there is no waiting period. All in all, this is the most outrageous loophole in our federal gun laws. And gun shows are where criminals do their shopping --where the second-hand gun market really thrives. And so, this is why one of our first goals in The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking is going to be to close down the gun shows! These gun shows are most often held on public property: civic centers, school gymnasiums, fairgrounds, city and county convention centers. And these giant weapons bazaars have developed considerable notoriety, because of such high-profile cases as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy Mcveigh, who was reported to have bought or sold weapons at guns shows. A recent issue of "Shotgun News" -- the "bible" of the gun pushers -- advertised over 500 gun shows for the last three months of 1997 alone. And this does not include many of the smaller shows and swap meets. I believe that now you can see why our Citizens campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking is going to result in tremendous controversy. And I wish that we could keep it secret -- 100% secret -- until we are ready to launch the campaign. But, unlike the NRA and the right-wing, gun toting fanatics, we do not have a multi-million dollar war chest. we depend upon grassroots support -- from friends like you. And so I wanted to take the calculated risk and share this plan with you, and hope that you will step forward and send a significant gift to express your belief that citizens -- with or without Congress -- can get things done! In a few weeks, if you're interested, I will forward to you a 'Citizens Action Kit," detailing exactly what can be done in your local community. We intend to bring pressure upon mayors, city councils, school boards, churches, and all property owners to ban the use of any facility for gun shows. Already, we are working with Dade county, Florida, mounting an all-out assault on gun shows in that area. I will be reporting to you about that innovative and successful initiative before long. But, as of now, we are not quite ready to go public with the results. But I must quickly bring this letter to a close, after I warn you that this is going to be a long, hard-fought campaign. After all, it took many, many years before the tobacco industry felt the heat of local citizens demanding a smoke-tree environment. So we must be patient, firm, determined -- and uncompromising. Our enemies will incorrectly and misleadingly scream about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. But in turn, we will quietly remind them that America is involved in a gun war -- that is claiming 35,000 lives each year including 9,OOO murdered by handguns. And we'll remind them that Americans must responsibly report transactions involving cars, liquor and other products -- why should gun sales be exempt? Every day 14 children, 19 years old and under, are killed by handguns, Much of this mayhem is made possible by the use of public property for gun shows. These statistics are tragic proof that a state of war exists. And, as you know, in my case, the statistic became personal heartbreak when my husband Jim was grievously wounded by a bullet intended for president Reagan. You and I must make America a safer place to live. Let's do it! P.S. I urge you to turn to the enclosed reply slip and write out a check in one of the amounts I've indicated. Or perhaps you can give more. But please do the best you can. I look forward to receiving your support, and I will trust in your silence as we prepare our citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: UN Treaty Seditious (fwd) Date: 06 Apr 1998 01:32:15 PST On Apr 5, Jo wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 21:21:12 -0700 >From: comminc@webaccess.net (Committee to Restore the Constitution) >Subject: UN Treaty Seditious >UN TREATY SEDITIOUS, RETIRED ARMY OFFICER WARNS LAWMAKERS > >Testifying before Wisconsin State-Federal Relations Committee in support of >Assembly Joint Resolution 67 (Memorializing Congress to cease certain >activities concerning the United Nations) LtCol Archibald Roberts charged >that the US Congress is party to a plot to overthrow the Constitution and >erect a United Nations 'new world order' on ruins of the Republic. > >"The United States Senate", he said, "declared the Charter of the United >Nations has become the supreme law of the land". (Senate Document 87, page >289, "Review of the United Nations Charter", 7 January 1954) > >President Clinton, too, is in violation of his oath, "....to uphold and >defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign >and domestic". (It is a criminal offense for any elected official, State or >Federal, to violate his oath of office) > >"Presidential Decision Directive #25, 3 May 1994", Roberts stated, "reveals >the transfer of command and control of US military to the Security Council, >United Nations Organization". ("On a case by case basis the President will >consider placing appropriate U.S. Forces under the operational control of a >competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the >Security Council", PDD #25, Section V-A) > >AVAILABLE ON REQUEST: >Status report AJR 67; photocopy AJR 67; photocopy pg 289, USS Doc 87; text >of Roberts' testimony, and PDD #25. > >Ask for AJR 67 status file. (Include USPS address) > >COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION, Inc >Post Ofice Box 986 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 > > God's Holy Word has been preserved! Read it for yourself! PHONICS RULE: Hard G and Soft G A hard g is the "guh" in GOD. The soft g copies the "j" sound! Hard G: When G is followed by A, O, U, L, R As in: gas, government, gun, glib, grab Soft G: When G is followed by E, I, Y As in: gentle, giant, gymnasium Exceptions: get, gift, gild, gill, gilt, gimmick, gipper, girl, give Also, when the U is silent: guess, guest, guise [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: heads up Date: 06 Apr 1998 08:01:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- - -- [ From: Debra McKim-Brown * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia April 5, 1998 #79 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ====================================================================== Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ====================================================================== HYDE'S "A TEAM" FORMING Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) picked Rep. James Rogan (R-Calif.), a former prosecutor and municipal judge, as point man to review the information on Clinton wrongdoing gathered by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Gingrich and Hyde also agreed to form a select committee to receive and evaluate Starr's evidence but, at the moment, Hyde is the only person appointed. "Chairman Hyde and I have asked Judge Rogan to review the lessons and implications of recent House inquiries," Gingrich said in a prepared statement last week. "His experience as a jurist affords him a unique perspective on both due process and basic fairness. He is an excellent choice for his assignment because of the bipartisan respect he enjoys among his colleagues." "I'm going to look at this from a constitutional and legal standpoint, not a partisan standpoint," Rogan told the Pasadena Star-News last Monday. "This is not about short-term political gains; this is about our country and our history. I have no ax to grind with President Clinton. I would give him the same presumption of innocence that I gave everyone in my courtroom." "The law requires the House to follow-up on information gathered by the independent counsel and act accordingly after reviewing all the evidence," Rogan said in another statement last week. "I will work diligently to ensure that all members are aware of the importance of due process and bipartisan cooperation." Well folks, just for kicks, let's see if we can find a pattern developing here. Besides serving as a judge, Rogan also worked for nearly six years as a district attorney in Los Angeles. He specialized in hard- core gang cases. Now comes a criminal defense attorney named David Schippers. Rep. Hyde, selected Schippers, a 68-year- old Chicago attorney, to lead the impeachment team as chief investigative counsel. Some old timers may still remember that name because, back in the 1960's, Schippers ran the Justice Department's busy organized crime and racketeering section in Chicago. Needless to say, Schippers knows a little about investigating obstruction and cover-up schemes. He's also a registered Democrat. Continuing on with what could easily become a very hard-hitting team, Hyde them tapped three Chicago investigators: Berle Littmann, a recently retired Internal Revenue Service investigator; another IRS investigator named Al Tracy; and Peter Wacks, a retired FBI Special Agent. Coincidentally, all three are long time associates of former Chicago federal prosecutor David Schippers. Hillary's opposition research people and "secret police" teams will have a field day with Hyde's new crew, as at least three of them (and Rep. James Rogan) have had long and colorful careers. However, this Chicago Team knew exactly what to expect coming in, and at least two have very thick skins. Apparently, Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde mean business. Hyde's new investigation team comes with over 100 year's experience dealing with well organized hard-core sleaze. It should also be reiterated that they are all already retired. That is, they have no career to worry about, and hence, do not have to worry about what toes they may step on during this investigation. Between them, they know every dirty trick in the book. So, if Hillary's cabal starts with their normal disinformation campaign, they will soon find that the Chicago Team will probably give back much better than they get -- which, from our point of view, will be great fun to watch. CONGRESS MUST ACT NOW If Congress would do its job properly, most of the White House scandals would be over this summer. The Clinton scandals would all be relegated to the dust bin of ex-presidential scandals. And no, we're not talking impeachment here, either. This is actually more important than that. Let's review only the facts that are immediately available: Both Dick Morris and George Stephanopoulos gave us a clue as to what is really going on in the back rooms of the White House. Stephanopoulos stated on a recent Sunday Sam and Cokie show that if the Clinton administration is going down, they plan a mutual destruction program to take a lot of other people down with them. Later, Morris informed us that Hillary's cabal of attorneys and "secret police" have been gathering all sorts of personal information on anyone they class as "enemies" of the Clinton administration. Now, through the good works of Larry Klayman and his Judicial Watch team, it was independently verified that Hillary has been paying non-government investigators to dig dirt on Members of Congress, judges, newspaper reporters, publications, and anyone testifying before Congressional hearings and the grand juries about Clinton administration wrongdoings. Add to that those 900+ FBI background-check files the White House acquired inappropriately and Hillary's huge database on people, and we see more than just a little mischief in progress. The fact is, the White House is running a full-blown obstruction of justice operation that would make anything that happened during the Nixon administration look amateurish. Current targets include Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), who is the point man on Capitol Hill for impeachment. In a fit of real irony, Hillary even had the Federal Election Commission check out Barr's election campaign finances. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) got it from both Hillary's scandal mongers and Hillary's Justice Department. Senator Fred Thompson, (R-TN) uncovered a few embarrassing details on how the Clinton campaign committee laundered communist Chinese money into their campaign coffers, so he was investigated. And let's not forget the early Congressional hearings. Those Republicans got Hillary's aggressive "secret police" and disinformation treatment, too. Meanwhile, Hillary's "secret police" are looking into the judges associated with any of the administration's cases coming up. And, lastly, let's not forget the ongoing public disinformation job they are doing on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his group. Under oath, White House assistant Eleanor Parker told of one of the "opposition research" teams (there is at least one other working at DNC headquarters) based in the Old Executive Building next to the White House. She admitted that the group sifted through public documents to collect personal details on targets. They also used computer research services. Dick Morris reports that: "The Clinton operation's use of private investigators began in 1992 when over $100,000 of federally subsidized campaign funds were used to pay sleuth Jack Palladino to investigate women rumored to have had affairs with Clinton. His mission? To intimidate them into silence." Recently, Judicial Watch deposed White House private investigator Terry Lenzer under oath for six- hours. And, finally, the American public got a small glimpse into the workings of Hillary's "secret police," and a little information on how they are actively involved in obstructing justice. Quickly, Judicial Watch verified that Lenzer's client list includes Hillary Clinton and White House operative Mickey Kantor. As the Washington Weekly reported: "On behalf of Hillary Clinton and on behalf of Clinton's lawyers, Lenzer has investigated virtually every enemy of the Clinton administration, as acknowledged by Lenzer's claims of work-product privilege: Starting with the investigation of 'bimbos' during the 1992 campaign, Lenzer has investigated unnamed judges (between two and five in the past five years, the last one in 1997), Linda Tripp, lawyers Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, reporters from the American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal." The infamous FBI killer Larry Potts is working for Lenzer, as is the disgraced past FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro. Rounding the circle and bringing this story into home stretch, we learn that among Lenzer's clients are the communist People's Republic of China, drug lawyer (and Democratic counsel) Richard Ben-Veniste, and Clinton defenders Ann Lewis and her brother Barney Frank. On top of that, Lenzer has close relations with Steve and Cokie Roberts. Which brings us back to what George Stephanopoulos blabbed about mutual destruction on the Sam and Cokie show. Lenzer's daughter also worked as a White House intern for Stephanopoulos. And, four of Terry Lenzer's employees have left his office and are now working directly for the White House. Convenient, isn't it! How blatant can they possibly be? Hillary hires a "secret police" investigation team, and the investigator installs his people in the White House where all those FBI files and Hillary's massive database happens to be accessible. So, the investigators have direct access to the Secret Service, FBI and IRS computers anytime they need information. Computer research of targets, indeed! Clinton's serial sex scandals are becoming hackneyed. As expected, friend of the Clintons, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, threw out Paula Jones' civil lawsuit. But, not before America heard more than enough to know that Bill is fooling with every female he can get his hands on except Hillary. The Red China bribe connection story was effectively killed, too. Between the Thompson Committee and the Department of Justice, they have just about assured that the American public will never learn the full truth of how -- and how extensively - -- the communists bribed our government. Most of the other scandals are left to Starr, and whatever he will or will not do. Actually, we can forget about all that for now. Because, ancillary to all the above scandals is a criminal enterprise that everyone can now easily understand. This one includes abuse of power, violation of personal privacy, intentional defamation of character, and a continuing enterprise called obstruction of justice. The participants are as easy to identify, and the connection lines are as easy to follow, as the interactions between the sleazy antagonists in an Elmore Leonard novel. In other words, a bicameral select Congressional committee investigation into this ongoing conspiracy of obstruction of justice would leave Congress looking as clean as Perry Mason in the eyes of the American public. The shame to the administration would overwhelm even that amoral bunch. A GUN IS ONLY A TOOL I am getting very tired of the socialist- liberal viewpoint in this country, and I am about to publicly tell a number of them (journalists, this time) to come up with some hard evidence to back up what they are saying or shut the hell up! This week, they're starting on the danger of citizen-owned guns again. These mush-mouthed hand-ringing buttinskys keep telling America that guns are bad. Guns are making our country a very dangerous land, they say. Guns kill people, they repeat. It's like the frontier days out there all over again, one babble-breath said. Listening to these fugitives from fact, one would think that the nefarious pistol in the drawer next to me is actually lying in wait for me to open the drawer so it can jump out and shoot me. A few years back I published a well circulated paper detailing the difference in violent crime between the United States and four European countries where guns are closely regulated. No matter that I used "official" FBI statistics, I was immediately chastised for being politically incorrect. Regardless, here's the basic (offending) data from the 1992 FBI Uniform Crime Report. The numbers are related in incidents per 100,000 population: Country ---- Murder ---- Robbery ====================================================================== U.S.A. -------- 9.3 -------- 263.0 England ------ 7.4 --------- 62.6 France ------- 4.6 --------- 90.4 Germany ----- 4.2 --------- 47.4 Italy ---------- 6.0 ---------- 68.6 If these numbers are taken on their face value, the United States is truly more dangerous than these four European countries. However, a great deal of the crime in the United States is committed by street gang punks and other riffraff in the inner-city. The FBI did not correct for that. However, we still can get some idea of the source of the problem by using their figures for the race of the perpetrators. Murder Robbery ====================================================================== White 5.1 126 Black 43.1 1,343 All I've got to say about these numbers is that my Black friends and neighbors in Detroit intuitively knew them to be true. It was the liberal press, and of course the politicians, who didn't want to hear this stuff. The FBI defines justifiable homicide as being "limited to the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing by a private citizen of a felon during the commission of a felony." The FBI reports that, in 1995, there were a total of 383 justifiable homicides by police officers and another 286 by civilians. Most, of course, were justifiable shootings by the use of a handgun. The FBI identified 7,071 (31.5%) White and 8,285 (36.9%) Black murders in 1995. Another 6,660 (29.7%) were of unknown race. As politically incorrect as this information may be, these are the facts as per the FBI, an organization currently under the control of liberals. These data are posted on their web page for anyone to see. Yet, journalists and politicians never bother to look. The FBI report positively identifies 1,157 murders by juvenile gangs alone -- and that is just the ones they know about. They identify another 1,010 murders as drug related. And so on, and so on. The cold hard fact is that, in the States where people own and use guns the most, there are fewest murders. And it is a natural result, not a statistical anomaly, that as States begin issuing concealed carry weapons permits violent crime immediately decreases significantly. These are easily verifiable facts, available to anyone with a computer. Yet, the political nincompoops in Washington and their clue-less journalist sycophants persist in fabricating and disseminating inaccurate information to the American people. Well folks, it's time we have at them -- politically speaking, of course. I, for one, do not relish carrying around an extra two pounds of tooled steel when I go out. However, even in the beautiful foothills of Appalachia, that can sometimes be a wise thing to do. Therefore, it must always remain my option. Towards that end, we (many of us) would like to thank the Kentucky General Assembly, which recently passed HB-318 to help secure the right of all Americans to protect themselves. That bill will allow any licensed person, from any State which issues concealed carry permits, to carry a concealed weapon in Kentucky. It also orders the Kentucky State Police to secure reciprocity agreements with all States that currently issue CCW's so that Kentucky permit holders may carry in their respective States. Read it and weep liberals. Sometimes, things work as they should. QUESTIONS FOR LEGISLATORS As our State's General Assembly session comes to a close, there are a number of important questions that should be presented to each individual legislator. These questions relate to our personal rights and liberties, as well as to our American way of life. Questions such as these can be quite enlightening in an elections year. So, it was suggested that some Heads Up readers may also wish to present these four simple questions to their State legislators, and even to Members of Congress. Therefore, we are making them public. 1.) There are an awful lot of laws, rules and regulations on the books. Do you agree with all those laws? If not, which ones did you work to have removed? Which laws were actually removed? Exactly when can we expect others to be repealed? 2.) The Founding Fathers intended that a wealth of unalienable rights and liberties belong to each citizen individually and are not to be interfered with by government. Generally, these include our natural and individual rights of life, liberty and property. The Founding Fathers intended it to be the expressed duty of all elected officials and bureaucrats to protect these rights and liberties. In fact, part of this duty to the people is expressed in the oath of office taken by all elected officials and public servants upon entering government service. Exactly what, then, did you do to insure the uninterrupted personal freedom of the people of our State? 3.) There were a number of bills recently submitted that would impact negatively on the freedom of the people of our State. In other words, if enacted into law, the bills will act to remove certain personal rights and liberties. Gun laws obstruct our unalienable right to protect self, family, home and community. Some laws, such as those regulating medical services and the purchase of other personal goods and services, affect our right to contract, which is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Others, such as forfeiture and environmental laws, adversely affect our natural right to private property. Still others, such as traffic stops and stop and frisk laws, directly affect our right to move about in society and function as we please. Did you support bills that adversely impacted on the rights and liberties of the people? If so, please indicate which ones and why. 4.) Over the past decade, government has been our fastest growing industry. More government, of course, needs more tax dollars. Consequently, about 45% of the average family's household income goes directly to taxes and another 10% for hidden costs caused by spurious regulations. What did you do to help remove some of this excessive tax burden from the people of our State? Do you ever intend to roll back government to a more unintrusive level? When will this program begin? THEY WANT A CRACK-DOWN For a guy who wants to run for President of the United States, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) sure does not act like he knows much about our Constitution. This time, McCain wants to crack down on smoking. So, this week, he introduced legislation to set a national tobacco policy, calling it "the best proposal" to address the complex issue. Demagoguery, it's called. McCain's proposed bill would force the tobacco industry to pay the government more than $506-billion over 25 years for "permission" to sell a product that has always been legal in the United States. It also adds $1.10-per pack (Clinton wants $1.50) in new cigarette taxes. Never mind that the federal government already taxes cigarettes over fifty cents per pack. Listening to the committee hearings on C-SPAN, one quickly realizes that this is not about smoking but about money -- and 'only' about money. Congress is acting like the officers of a conquering army arguing about the dividing of the spoils of war. This time it's cigarettes. But, if we allow this unconstitutional action to go forward, there are already people looking into doing somewhat the same thing with high-content sugar and fat products. What follows that, Sports Utility Vehicles? According to the Smith Barney Tobacco Research company, cigarettes in America could cost more than $3.56 a pack by the year 2002. That means that, as in Europe, criminal gangs will suddenly find bootlegged and smuggled cigarettes to be a great new profit center. A little Yankee ingenuity will quickly come into effect, and the product will be easy to come by. That is because tobacco farmers' "quotas" are already set very low. Many tobacco farms have plenty of room, and could easily triple or quadruple production without attracting much attention. There was a time in our American history when legislators honored our United States Constitution. When Congress wanted to tax and regulate a legal product out of existence, they knew that there was only one legal way to do it: Pass a Constitutional Amendment. That happened in 1919 with the Eighteenth Amendment to restrict beverage alcohol. No place in our Constitution is there any hint of authority for the federal government to regulate any legal product while it is in use within the boundaries of a State. Surely, some of the thousands of attorneys working in the administrative and legislative branches would have noticed that fact. Yet, the do-gooders in Washington persist anyway. The reason being, of course, is they want more of our money to spend on their socialist programs, and increased tobacco taxes seem like a politically correct way to take it. All the political hoopla over tobacco also provides a great smoke-screen to cover one of the federal government's most visible failures: that Constitutionally mandated duty to protect our nation's borders against the constant influx of illegal aliens and illegal drugs. Our country is being invaded every day by many thousands of third-world people and tons of illegal drugs. Yet the likes of Clinton, McCain and their Washington elite friends, find it much more expedient and profitable to go after the American public instead. It's time we "crack-down" on something, all right. Perhaps it's time that We the People crack-down on an out of control federal government. It is time we force the federal government to obey the Constitution, as written. -- End - ========================================================================== 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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: ANOTHER POLL (fwd) Date: 06 Apr 1998 10:57:00 PST On Apr 06, John Wilson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Another poll on MSNBC Asking about support for the Permanate ban on military assault style firearms. GO VOTE http://www.msnbc.com/news/156278.asp John Wilson voyager@mo.net [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: ANOTHER POLL (fwd) Date: 06 Apr 1998 16:32:41 -0400 (EDT) The aforementioned poll at : http://www.msnbc.com/news/156278.asp is currently running 76% against making the import ban permanent, 24% for. Go hit this poll. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Yet Another Gun Poll (fwd) Date: 06 Apr 1998 16:44:48 PST On Apr 6, Posthill, John B. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ROCers: Please help us out in a poll we are having in North Carolina. We are losing badly. It is the usual question.... > The web site address is: http://www.wral-tv.com/ > > Pass the word to anyone else you think might vote appropriately. Thank you. John Posthill [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: CAS: DN: Congress Dems investigating diGenova and his wife now (fwd) Date: 06 Apr 1998 09:04:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [ CAS is still down. This is being sent manually. ] Not sure if CAS is up yet but I came across this item and thought it might be worth passing on. Apparently the Democrats on the Teamster election investigation are demanding to see diGenova and Toensing's time sheets. Remember that the fresh break-out of Palladino and IGI investigations were rumored to include diGenova and Toensing who are vocal opponents of the Clintons on the current events talk shows. Also note that Goodling has been given blanket power to issue subpoenas which will give him alot of flexibility. Among the Dem members of the committee is one Lorretta Sanchez, Dennis Kuchinich, Lynne Woolsey and Harold Ford (R-Tenn). Senior member is Bill Clay. On the Republican side is Ron Paul and Hoekstra and Goodling mentioned below (the committee web page is at http:///www.house.gov/eeo) --- Jim Teamsters inquiry chairman also gets power for subpoenas without seeking approval By Richard A. Ryan and Bradley A. Stertz / Detroit News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- A congressional panel investigating the Teamsters was given clearance Wednesday to hire two ex-FBI agents to help uncover how the government could spend nearly $18 million to supervise the union's presidential election only to have it overturned a few months later. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce also made it simpler to obtain information from reluctant sources by giving its chairman, Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pa., blanket power to issue subpoenas without seeking committee approval each time. "We are prepared to use the full force of the House's subpoena power, including contempt proceedings if necessary, to arrive at the truth about the flawed '96 union election," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland. The Michigan lawmaker is in charge of the Teamsters investigation. The committee agreed to hire Daniel Anderson, a 30-year FBI veteran who worked on many internal audits, and Daniel Sullivan, a 24-year veteran with experience in organized crime and white-collar investigations. The new hirings are the fifth and sixth staffers added to the subcommittee to assist in its probe. Earlier, the committee hired a forensic auditor, a spokesman, and the husband-and-wife law firm of Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, both former U.S. attorneys, as co-chief counsel. During Wednesday's contentious hearing, Democrats repeated their demand to see the time sheets of diGenova and Toensing. They insist House rules give them the right to see all committee documents. Hoekstra has refused to allow them to view the time sheets, arguing they will tip off targets of the investigation. Hoekstra has certified to Goodling, however, that the two lawyers have put in more than the 160 hours a month required by their $25,000-a-month contract. Hoekstra's investigations subcommittee is probing the 1996 Teamsters election in which Ron Carey won a narrow victory over Detroit labor lawyer James P. Hoffa. The election was later overturned because union funds were illegally diverted into Carey's campaign. Carey has been barred from running in a rerun election, now expected to be held sometime this summer. Copyright 1998, The Detroit News -------- jhofmann@erols.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: CAS: DN: Congress Dems investigating diGenova and his wife now (fwd) Date: 06 Apr 1998 09:04:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [ CAS is still down. This is being sent manually. ] Not sure if CAS is up yet but I came across this item and thought it might be worth passing on. Apparently the Democrats on the Teamster election investigation are demanding to see diGenova and Toensing's time sheets. Remember that the fresh break-out of Palladino and IGI investigations were rumored to include diGenova and Toensing who are vocal opponents of the Clintons on the current events talk shows. Also note that Goodling has been given blanket power to issue subpoenas which will give him alot of flexibility. Among the Dem members of the committee is one Lorretta Sanchez, Dennis Kuchinich, Lynne Woolsey and Harold Ford (R-Tenn). Senior member is Bill Clay. On the Republican side is Ron Paul and Hoekstra and Goodling mentioned below (the committee web page is at http:///www.house.gov/eeo) --- Jim Teamsters inquiry chairman also gets power for subpoenas without seeking approval By Richard A. Ryan and Bradley A. Stertz / Detroit News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- A congressional panel investigating the Teamsters was given clearance Wednesday to hire two ex-FBI agents to help uncover how the government could spend nearly $18 million to supervise the union's presidential election only to have it overturned a few months later. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce also made it simpler to obtain information from reluctant sources by giving its chairman, Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pa., blanket power to issue subpoenas without seeking committee approval each time. "We are prepared to use the full force of the House's subpoena power, including contempt proceedings if necessary, to arrive at the truth about the flawed '96 union election," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland. The Michigan lawmaker is in charge of the Teamsters investigation. The committee agreed to hire Daniel Anderson, a 30-year FBI veteran who worked on many internal audits, and Daniel Sullivan, a 24-year veteran with experience in organized crime and white-collar investigations. The new hirings are the fifth and sixth staffers added to the subcommittee to assist in its probe. Earlier, the committee hired a forensic auditor, a spokesman, and the husband-and-wife law firm of Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, both former U.S. attorneys, as co-chief counsel. During Wednesday's contentious hearing, Democrats repeated their demand to see the time sheets of diGenova and Toensing. They insist House rules give them the right to see all committee documents. Hoekstra has refused to allow them to view the time sheets, arguing they will tip off targets of the investigation. Hoekstra has certified to Goodling, however, that the two lawyers have put in more than the 160 hours a month required by their $25,000-a-month contract. Hoekstra's investigations subcommittee is probing the 1996 Teamsters election in which Ron Carey won a narrow victory over Detroit labor lawyer James P. Hoffa. The election was later overturned because union funds were illegally diverted into Carey's campaign. Carey has been barred from running in a rerun election, now expected to be held sometime this summer. Copyright 1998, The Detroit News -------- jhofmann@erols.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nazi=22_strategy_in_'gun_control'_=3D_=22Sporting_Purpose=22?= (fwd) Date: 07 Apr 1998 08:29:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Chris W. Stark" ****JPFO e-mail Alert!**** Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. Aaron Zelman - Executive Director 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 http://www.JPFO.org email: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org 04/07/98 -------- "Nazi" strategy in 'gun control' summed up in 2 words: "Sporting Purpose" by Richard Stevens JPFO Firearms Sentinel Editor "Gun control" is political strategy, not policy. President Clinton's administration proved it again on April 6 when he announced a broader ban on the importation of certain semi-automatic rifles because they did not meet the requirements for "sporting use." These rifles weren't for "sporting use," according to the administration, because they could be fitted with "large" magazines or clips. This "sporting use" strategy was used before. The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test. Section 25(1) of that Law proclaimed: "It is forbidden to manufacture ... and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled -- beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities -- ..." Section 21 of the Nazi Law (and its enforcing regulations) employed the "sporting use" exception also where they permitted licensed persons to carry "firearms, designed for -- and usually used for -- the hunting of fair game." Clinton cleverly dovetailed his autocratic gun ban with fear of crime, played on urban Americans' ignorance of firearms, and distanced ordinary people from gun owners, saying: [O]ur administration has concluded that the import of assault weapons that use large-capacity military magazines should be banned. As everyone knows, you don't need an Uzi to go deer hunting. You don't need an AK 47 to go skeet shooting. These are military weapons, weapons of war. They were never meant for a day in the country, and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets. Clinton's announcement achieved several "gun control" goals as explained here: TACTIC 1. Characterize ban as another anti-crime law. EFFECT ON "GUN CONTROL" DEBATE (a) Supports the view that guns are a cause another anti-crime of crime; (b) Gives credit for the recent drop in crime to "gun control" laws (rather than conceal- carry, citizen action, or harsher penalties). TACTIC 2. Sustain power of federal agency to define "sporting use" EFFECT ON "GUN CONTROL" DEBATE (a) Declares right of government to define what Americans consider "sports;" (b) Teaches people to accept government agency as protective nanny (rather than a "necessary evil"), TACTIC 3. Repeat the message that citizens should expect to have guns only for hunting EFFECT ON "GUN CONTROL" DEBATE (a) Drives wedge between city-dwellers and country-dwellers; (b) Links gun rights with hunting privileges, thus devaluing the rights (and hunting, too, is increasingly unpopular); (c) Weakens public understanding of legitimate self-defense and militia uses of firearms. To understand how the "sporting use" definition led to the Holocaust, how the same language was imported into the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, and how that language is bearing its vicious fruit now, get and read "Gun Control:" Gateway to Tyranny, available from JPFO at http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm When they brand us as "gun nuts" and "wackos" for standing up for our rights, remember an old friend whom nobody called a "right wing crazy." Among the most loved and popular liberal Democrats in modern American politics was the late Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. Senator Humphrey said: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." And isn't that what the Second Amendment means, MR. CLINTON? -- To become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm There you will see a printable member application, along with info on membership. If you wish, you can become a member using our on-line application as well. Membership IS open to ALL Law abiding citizens. ************************************************************** Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Chris W. Stark - JPFO Director of Electronic Communications 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN TO ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." ************************************************************** TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: subscribe@JPFO.org ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". ************************************************************** -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Focus On The Cross, Not The X-Rated Bunny (fwd) Date: 07 Apr 1998 08:48:21 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: Exegesis _________________________________________________=20 Exegesis=09=20 A Compass For Moral Excellence Published Worldwide From Washington =20 April 7, 1998=20 Focus On The Cross, Not The X-Rated Bunny It's Holy Week, time to focus on what is really important. First we must try to clear our minds. =20 It's said that ten percent of America is outraged by Judge Susan Webber Wright's dismissal of the Paula Jones lawsuit. It was too much to hope that Mrs. Jones could have had her day in court. Her case may have been flimsy, but that was the job of the jury to decide after the evidence had been presented, rather than for the judge to preempt. In Arkansas, it isn't apparently outrageous for the Governor to put his hand up the dress of an employee, unzip his pants, request oral sex and threaten her if she tells anyone. Are we to infer from the ruling that this kind of thing happens all the time? Nobody, including the judge, denies that the President is a sexual predator. By dismissing the case, she accepts that the incident took place. "Boorish and offensive" though it may be, she deems it not serious enough to deserve a court hearing, let alone an apology or compensation for the victim.=20 Mrs. Wright, a centrist Republican, is a former student of Bill Clinton who ought to have recused herself from this case. She failed to consider that Mr. Clinton is no ordinary man, "no Joe Six-Pack" as he readily admits. He was the Governor of the State. And that is why Alan Keyes, speaking in Washington last Friday, was right to call her decision "biased, incompetent and depraved". For the Paula Jones case is not about sex; it is about the abuse of power. Mr. Clinton says in this week's Time, "Having the case dismissed and putting this behind us is plainly in the best interests of the country." Plainly, it is not.=20 What message is he sending to the women of this country? A further ten percent of America is rejoicing that Mr. Clinton seems to be getting away with yet another outrage. Rejoicing? Yes, there are still people out there, both the sick and the deluded, who are easily captivated by the plastic smile of the crocodile. They are in for a profound shock. And the other 80%? Apparently, they don't care that the nation's leader has been exposed as a serial rapist, predator and adulterer as well as a bank robber, fraudster and much more. As one Chicago college student wrote to us this week: "Mr. Clinton can have sex with sheep for all I care, as long as he does his job properly."=20 Such a compartmentalized, distorted and depraved view of the presidency is Mr. Clinton's unsavory legacy to his country. And that, beloved readers, is the current state of America. So now what do we do? One benefit of recent events is that we have an accurate reading of how profoundly sick this great nation has become: it is wracked by hypocrisy, duplicity and fear; its legal system is corrupt and complex, and its Head of State is the most corrupt, dangerous man ever to rule a Western nation in modern times. Of course, most Americans are still largely in the dark about Mr. Clinton. He is popular, portrayed by his Stalinist media as a lovable rogue. He certainly isn't popular for his policies or achievements; he has precious few of either. But Mr. Clinton's popularity is simply an extension of the man himself: both are a superficial irrelevance. He is indeed dangerous - after all, over a hundred witnesses who could testify against him are dead - but the popular predator is, above all else, frivolous and peripheral. =20 Bill Clinton is as relevant to solving America's real problems as the Easter Bunny is to the Crucifixion and Resurrection of our Lord, which we observe this week. Actually, Mr. Clinton resembles the Easter Bunny with a machine-gun, a paradox which belongs in a black comedy or a book of horror tales. Unlike another famous bunny, it is unlikely that this one will keep going and going. This presidency has been shallow and irrelevant from the outset. If Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr succeeds in shaming him into resignation or proving that he lied under oath, we all may yet learn a lesson from this chaotic character. So what's next? Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is preparing what the London Sunday Telegraph called "the legal equivalent of a nuclear strike at the presidency": charging Monica Lewinsky with perjury and naming Bill Clinton as an unindicted co-conspirator. That term has been rarely heard since President Nixon was named as one during the Watergate affair. It means that the person was involved in the crime, but has not been charged. If Miss Lewinsky were found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, it would mean that Mr. Clinton were guilty too. His fate is absolutely linked to hers, even if he is not indicted. As the London Sunday Times commented: "In that case, Clinton will not have to wait much longer before knowing how history will receive him - as the guardian of economic prosperity or a sex-crazed, X-rated stain on the dignity of the office." For now, though, let us try to put these matters to one side. For an event much more important is about to be commemorated. It was to a nation burdened with a corrupt, top-heavy bureaucracy that Jesus came as the Messiah of the Jewish people and of the world. He devoted His ministry to illustrating that miracles could triumph over evil if faith in God were present. And into Jerusalem He rode on a donkey, on the day we know as Palm Sunday. As He did, exuberant crowds in the Mount of Olives villages waved palm branches and cried "Hosanna - Save us!" and "Baruch Haba B'Shem Adonai - Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord." Yet Jesus knew what lay ahead. And just as we weep over the state of America, He walked a few yards down the slope of the Mount of Olives, taking in the stunning view of the Temple, and wept over the City of Jerusalem. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate." (Matthew 23: 37-38) We now sense a similar desolation. The America in which we believe, which we love and which we long for once again, has been systematically raped of its values, morals and ethics over the past few years, most thoroughly by the present Rapist-in-Chief himself. And for what purpose? What good has it done? Is it not time for America to admit it is on the wrong road and to make a cultural, political and spiritual u-turn? The politically-correct view is that all religions are equal. The events of the days prior to the Crucifixion clearly show otherwise.=20 Jesus strode into the Temple Courts, angrily denouncing the corrupt religious leaders, calling them hypocrites, blind guides, blind fools full of hypocrisy and wickedness (Matthew 23). Were it Washington instead of Jerusalem, one can imagine Him sweeping across The Mall, similarly denouncing the ruling authorities in a way the media and Christian folk ought to have done long ago, proclaiming: "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." (Matthew 23:4) That sounds remarkably like the government to me. In reality, the only way we shall restore the America we love is to begin the process by changing ourselves: that process of change begins with accepting who we are, miserable sinners, forgiven only by the single greatest Event of History, the one that took place that Friday.=20 And after the betrayal, there it was, a simple piece of wood nailed to an Olive Tree, two robbers either side of Him, as Jesus made the sacrifice that would end all sacrifices and bring the Jewish religion to its logical completion. Was that the end of the story? As Tony Campolo says: "It's Friday, but Sunday's coming." =87 Steve Myers =D7 Editor ________________________________________________________________________ If you are located near Washington DC, we invite you to join us for our Christ in the Passover - Last Supper celebration on Maundy Thursday.=20 Please call for details. _________________________________________________=20 Later this week, in my other role as President of the Global Opportunity Foundation, a small non-profit educational and public affairs institute, I'm going to be making the Foundation's Easter Appeal. =20 Two or three times a year, I ask our readers to be generous in support of the educational programs of the Foundation. I know you'll respond as wonderfully as you always do. May the Lord be with you this Holy Week, and grant you His peace. _________________________________________________=20 =A9 Exegesis 1998=20 Post Office Box 789, McLean, Virginia 22101, USA Please Visit our Web Page at http://www.sm.org =20 =20 _________________________________________________ 0000,0669,4CCCWe welcome your letters to the editor. Please write to editor@sm.org _________________________________________________ =20 ExTel International Telecommunications Services Have you taken a look at ExTel recently? We'd like your telephone business. =20 * Low rates with MCI, FCI, LCI, Telco and other providers * Most under 10 cents a minute at all times. * Calling Cards at 15.9 cents a minute =20 * Prepaid Calling Cards at just 14 cents a minute * The lowest international rates anywhere. Whichever service you'd like to use, you'll find more information and a sign up form on our web page at http://www.sm.org/extel=20 ___________________________________________________ And if you'd like your own business, you'll find the answer at=20 http://www.sm.org/pp _________________________________________________ =A9 Exegesis 1998 Post Office Box 789, McLean, Virginia 22101, USA http://www.sm.org/exegesis ______________________________________ To subscribe, please send an email to: requests@talklist.com with SUBSCRIBE EXEGESIS in the BODY of the message. To unsubscribe please send an email to: requests@talklist.com with UNSUBSCRIBE EXEGESIS in the BODY of the message. Letters to the Editor should be addressed to: editor@sm.org For more information about Exegesis, please visit http://www.sm.org/exegesis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton takes Catholic Communion breaking their rules Date: 07 Apr 1998 09:30:11 -0500 (CDT) NY POST April 6, 1998 HOLY HELL OVER PREZ COMMUNION By CHRISTOPHER FRANCESCANI and KAREN FOERSTEL ====================================================================== It was "wrong" for President Clinton to receive Holy Communion from a South African priest last month, John Cardinal O'Connor said in a stunning Palm Sunday address yesterday "The action taken by the priest in South Africa, however well-intentioned, was legally and doctrinally wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church," O'Connor told an overflowcrowd packed into St. Patrick's Cathedral for the start of the holiest week in the church year. The sacrament of Holy Communion cannot be given or received, he said, "merely as an act of courtesy or a spiritual gesture." "The Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith ... our way of life, the essence of our faith," he said. "To receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church means one believes he is receiving not a symbol, but Christ Jesus Himself." O'Connor's comments were the strongest to date by any Catholic official in reaction to the furor created after the president, a Southern Baptist, and the First Lady, a Methodist, received Communion in a South African Catholic church on March 29. That Mass - during the Clintons' trip to Africa - drew widespread media attention after Clinton reportedly squirmed uncomfortably through a sermon about the evils of adultery. New York Catholics had flooded O'Connor's office with calls of concern after seeing pictures of Clinton receiving the sacrament, prompting the cardinal to respond, said spokesman Joseph Zwilling. "My office, practically all week, did nothing but take phone calls from people saying, "How can this be?'" Zwilling explained. O'Connor, the spiritual leader of New York's 2 million Roman Catholics, took great pains to stress that his comments were not a "political statement or a questioning of anyone's character," but that as a church leader, his "silence could otherwise mislead" the faithful. "My statement has nothing to do with the person of the president or his wife or any of the allegations concerning any alleged misbehavior ... it has everything to do with church law and the teaching about the Holy Eucharist, this rarest of gifts." Catholic doctrine states that only in a few very specific cases can non-Catholics receive Communion - in situations of "grave necessity," for example, such as imminent death. The receiver must also believe that he is receiving the actual body of Christ, not just a symbolic representation. The Vatican has made no formal comment. The White House said yesterday that Clinton's advance team had checked with the South African priest before the service, and the taking of Communion had been cleared with the South African church. A White House official told The Post that the South African church. Conference of Bishops has an "open Communion policy." "There's a great deal of confusion here. In the program, it said, "We encourage baptized Christians to take Communion.' This was checked beforehand. The president did not mean in any way to slight any Catholics." But the priest, the Rev. Mohlomi Makabane, indicated last week that he was taken by surprise when the Clintons lined up to receive the sacrament. He said, "Here you have the most powerful man in the world, and I can't embarrass Mr. Clinton by saying, "No, you go and sit down.'" O'Connor's comments came at the start of Holy Week, the holiest period in the Christian calendar, which culminates next Sunday with Easter. Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.), who is Catholic, agreed with O'Connor's statements, but pointed out it could have been worse. "Theologically, Cardinal O'Connor is right. On the other hand, if a person means well and has good intentions, it would be more offensive to stop that person from taking Communion ... You have to be careful not to commit a greater offense in enforcing church law." # # # ========================================================================== 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: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Letter to my senator things and my Representative Date: 07 Apr 1998 10:35:01 +0500 Dear Senator Ashcroft (and Bond and Rep. Ike Skelton): I am sickened, disheartened, and angry with President Clinton's preemptory and unilateral decision to ban another class of firearms. As you know, the foreign guns he targeted are completely legal for import under the rules his own administration made in the 1994 Crime Bill. I want to think that you will stand up and resist this latest encroachment. I want you to state that "sporting purposes" is unrelated to the Second Amendment; that the Founding Fathers weren't interested in protecting suitable-for-hunting sporting goods from government infringement. These incremental gun bans have got to stop. What will you do about it? Will you move to deny funds to enforce this bogus "Executive Order" or otherwise take action on behalf of American gunowners? Thank you, Brad Alpert - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Yet Another Gun Poll (fwd) Date: 06 Apr 1998 16:44:48 PST On Apr 6, Posthill, John B. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ROCers: Please help us out in a poll we are having in North Carolina. We are losing badly. It is the usual question.... > The web site address is: http://www.wral-tv.com/ > > Pass the word to anyone else you think might vote appropriately. Thank you. John Posthill [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: "Shameless Clinton Should Resign" - Texas house majority leader sez Date: 07 Apr 1998 13:03:45 -0500 (CDT) Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater Dick Armey rips 'shameless' Clinton COPPELL, Texas - House Majority Leader Dick Armey said President Clinton should resign because of the sexual misconduct allegations against him but won't because he has no shame. "I believe he's a shameless person," Armey told about 50 government students Monday at Coppell High School. "If it were me that had documented personal conduct along the lines of the president's, I would be so filled with shame that I would resign. "This president won't do that. His basic credo in life is, 'I will do whatever I can get away with."' Armey's remarks were some of the harshest yet by a top Republican since a federal judge dismissed Paula Corbin Jones' sexual misconduct lawsuit against the president last week. Asked Tuesday morning whether he agreed with Armey, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he didn't. But he did tell NBC's Today show that "the president should tell the country the truth." "I think that the rest of us ought to be patient and wait for Judge Starr to report," Gingrich said, referring to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. "Dick Armey is a very smart man, and he represents a lot of people who feel very deeply," Gingrich said. Since allegations surfaced that Clinton had an affair with a former White House intern and encouraged her to lie about it, Republicans have generally been restrained in their criticism, although many have said the president should resign if the allegations are proven true. "His ideology begins and ends with himself," said Armey, a Texas lawmaker first elected to Congress in 1984. "And, frankly, my own guess is the man spends very little time and effort in his life pursuing anything other than his own physical comforts." Deputy White House press secretary Joe Lockhart told The Dallas Morning News that the president was "entirely focused on doing the job that the American public sent him to Washington to do." "The strongest economy in history, falling crime rates and welfare rolls dropping to record-low levels do not allow the president to contemplate any suggestions from Mr. Armey," Lockhart said. By The Associated Press -------Master Chief in charge of Political Incorrection----- ************VRWC Irregular Officer Training Corps****** -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Fwd: America's Grand Deception (fwd) Date: 07 Apr 1998 13:07:23 -0500 (CDT) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns =09In 1983, two independent researchers, David Dodge and Tom Dunn, while looking for evidence of political corruption in a library=20 in Belfast Maine, stumbled across an 1825 copy of the Maine Civil Code.=20 In this document, as I believe is customary, the Constitution of the=20 U.S. was printed. They noticed that Article Thirteen of the amendments=20 was not the same Article Thirteen which is now enumerated in the=20 Constitution. This Article Thirteen, which is known as the "Titles of Nobility" amendment, (TON) reads as follows: Article XIII If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, re- ceive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. The post went on to say that the researchers had carried on a written communication with Sen. George Mitchell (D. Maine) and as I recall, someone named Hargrave from the National Archives in Washington DC. It appears that the original position of Mitchell and Hargrave was that this was simply a printing error and that it had been im- mediately corrected upon discovery. This does not appear to be the case. Dodge and Dunn went on to find, at last count, 24 different state legislatures which printed this amendment as Article Thirteen, in 77 separate editions of their respective Civil Codes. This occurred over a period from 1818 until 1876. It has also been found in school text books and other publications from that period. At first I was very skeptical, but now I have seen 2nd generation photo copies of all of these documents. Almost every document carries a stamp from the library where it was found. In some cases where the document was hand written I have only seen a typed version, but after speaking with the researchers at length, I am sure that these typed reproductions are faithful. In total, they present compelling evidence that the original Article Thirteen was wrongfully removed from the Constitution. Gradually the position of Senator Mitchell and others at the National Archive changed. (Paraphrased from the letters between Dodge and Mitchell). One such position was that the article in question had been proposed in the 11th congress, 2nd session in 1810 and subse- quently ratified by only 12 states before the close of 1812. As there were 17 states at the time that the Amendment was proposed it required that 13 states ratify, and this did not happen. Dodge and Dunn continued their research. They found a circular letter, dated 7, Jan. 1818, commissioned bythe House of Representatives for President James Monroe and written by then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. It was sent to only 3 states, of the original 17, that had not yet responded, as to their disposition on the proposed Thirteenth Article. Virginia was one of those states. Dodge and Dunn now went to the Library of Congress and were allowed access to the rare book room. There they found an un-cataloged book entitled "The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia", 1819. The amendment was there, listed as the Thirteenth Article of the U.S. Constitution. This, of course, indicated that a 13th state had indeed ratified the amendment, constituting a 3/4 majority of the states of the Union at the time the amendment was proposed... and now, the Senator's posi- tion changes once again. They responded to Dodge by saying that since there were 21 states by the time that Virginia ratified in 1818 or 1819, 13 was no longer enough to bring the amendment into law. They contended that It would have then required 16 votes to ratify, not 13. This appears to be the current position of Senator Mitchell and the National Archives, although the Archives legal department has not yet formally responded to the question. The Constitution is **silent** on what is to be done concerning the addition of new states during the ratification process. Furthermore, the four new states (Louisi- ana, Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois) who, Senator Mitchell and the archivists, claim should have been considered in this process, all, **without exception**, carried the "Titles of Nobility" amendment on their U.S. Constitutions for at least several years after 1818 or 1819. It would appear that those state's own legislatures considered this to be the law of the land. There are some documents which have been uncovered that are not included in the current edition of the report. Brian March did a thorough search of the archives in the four states that were added during the ratification process. No evidence was found to indicate that the Secretary of State polled them as too their response on the amendment. !!!THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED!!! and as I said earlier, all four states have been shown to have published the TON amendment. The letters from those state archives are among the documents not inclu- ded in the report. I have seen copies of all the documents. These guys have done some tremendous research and documented everything very well. Another "report to the President" of Feb 3, 1818, a time when the four states had already been admitted, also lists specifically the states that were involved in the ratification and !!!AGAIN, THE NEW STATES ARE NOT CONSIDERED!!! Again, this report was not available when they went to press. If you ask Brian to include some of the new material I feel certain that he will. To summarize: * The current position of those in the government is that there may have been a 13th state (Virginia) ratify the amendment. However, at the time that such ratification took place, new states had entered the union. The required 3/4 majority was not met as determined by the addition of the new states. * Dodge, Dunn and March contend and provide documentation that supports the claim that at that time the new states were not considered in the process of ratification. - The circular letter of Jan. 7, 1818 - The report to the president of feb. 3 1818 - Published civil codes of the four new states which clearly show that those states considered the amend- ment law even though they had not been asked to vote on it. * Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of new states entering the Union during the ratif- ication process. * Consider the fact that the Constitution is silent on the matter of time limits on the ratification process itself. Today, time limits on an amendments ratification must be stipulated at the time of the acceptance of the proposal. This was not done in the case of TON, so there was/is no time limit in effect. * I know of no legal way for an amendment to be removed from the Constitution other than congressional repeal, which requires the passage of a contrary amendment. Does anyone know of another way with precedent? Will Morris William_Morris@ccm.jf.intel.com P.S: If you would like to read the report for yourself you need to get one from Brian March. They do not want it posted electron- ically. In all fairness I completely understand this. They have been working on this since 83' and they sure don't get any coverage from the main stream press. They are on their own trying to inform people that !!! SOMEONE HAS BEEN SCREWING WITH OUR CONSTITUTION !!! The book also includes several excellent essays on Banking that were published anonymously in "The Spirit of 76'" newspaper. It is suspected that Jefferson wrote these. It is curious that he would feel compelled to do so anonymously. Send $25.00 for 1st class delivery or $30.00 for 2 day express Brian March c/o P.O. Box 26512 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125/TDC -- ******************************************************************** "The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance." --Thomas Paine ******************************************************************** timr@efn.org (503) 895-4681 (FAX) (503) 895-4417 (VOICE) To review the entire text showing the historical background and implications of this information visit this site: http://www3.l0pht.com/pub/blackcrwl/patriot/missing_13th_amend.txt Combining this knowledge with the fraudulent taxation of Americans by the corporate IRS, the pyramid scheme of the Social Security System, and the corruption of the banking and judicial systems, is it any wonder that Senator George Mitchell retired early from the Senate and why other politicians are leaving Washington like Simpson of Wyoming, Pat Schroeder of Colorado, Susan Molinari and Bill Paxon of New York. Could be that these politicians see the handwriting on the wall and understand that the grand era of deception is coming to an end at last. Better get out while the getting is good I guess !! ---- End Forwarded Message --=20 John_Johnson TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com =A9 1998 All rights reserved -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.= net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: the REAL danger of gun control - ENSLAVEMENT (fwd) Date: 08 Apr 1998 01:24:15 PST On Apr 8, EdgarSuter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Arms, Violence, and the State A Historical Perspective by Jeremy Black Copyright, Chronicles, January 1998, pp.19-21. pull quote: "Crime and insecurity are both aspects of the crisis of Western society a= t the=0Aclose of the millennium. This sense of helplessness, itself fuele= d by the=0Agovernment's monopolization of the means of force, is then use= d by the central=0Astate to justify suppressing still more personal liber= ties and the right to=0Aself-defense." Jeremy Black is a professor of history at the University of Durham, Engla= nd. Governments today seek to monopolize violence and to control the ability = of=0Apeople to defend themselves, their families, and their communities. = In doing=0Aso, governments present themselves not only as representatives= and protectors=0Aof their people, but also as the necessary end of the h= istorical process.=0AThese views can be contested, not only by appealing = to empirical and=0Aphilosophical aspects of the modem situation but also = by looking at the march=0Aof time. Both involve challenging the arrogant = claims of the state to power=0Aand legitimacy. =09History reveals the degree to which states increasingly became the exp= ression=0Aof organized violence. This owed much to the ambition of govern= ments to=0Amonopolize the use of such violence, at the expense of a range= of groups, from=0Aprivate individuals to stateless pirates and mercenari= es. Indeed, the=0Amonopolization of violence became a definition of state= hood, as a functional=0Aunderstanding of rulership replaced the tradition= al legitimist understanding=0Ain the 19th and 20th centuries. Governments= today prefer to rely on other=0Adefinitions, especially those summed up = in the term "democracy," but part of=0Athe brutal truth is that states an= d governments are defined by power, the=0Aquest for power, and the denial= of power to others. =09Yet this monopolization of violence is relatively recent, and in no wa= y an=0Ainevitable aspect of state organization. In the 19th century, mili= tary=0Aentrepreneurship=97mercenary activity=97 became less frequent in E= urope, and this=0Ainfluenced relations between states, and between states= and nonstate bodies. Recruiting via intermediaries was replaced by direct recruiting, especial= ly=0Asystems of conscription. The Crimean War (185356) was the last war i= n which=0Athe British government recruited units of European foreign merc= enaries for war=0Aservice. =09Authorized nonstate violence was also eliminated in a piecemeal fashio= n,=0Amostly in the 19th century. This hit privateers, such as the governm= ent-=0Asupported and supporting Barbary corsairs of North Africa, and mer= cantile=0Acompanies with territorial power and their own armed forces, su= ch as the=0ABritish East India Company. The elimination of such practices= owed something=0Ato their ability to provoke interstate conflicts by bei= ng outside full state=0Acontrol. Their elimination also reflected a sense= that such practices were=0Aanachronistic as well as antagonistic to gove= rnments that sought power,=0Aemphasized reform, and placed a premium on r= ationality, conceived of in terms=0Aof a clearly defined organization wit= h explicit rules of conduct and state-=0Adirected systems. The territoria= l and military roles of the companies came to=0Aan end, that of the Briti= sh East India Company after the Indian Mutiny. At a=0Amore mundane level,= in 1882 the Italian government took over the coaling base=0Aestablished = by the Rubattino Steamship Company at Assab near the mouth of the=0ARed S= ea. It seemed inappropriate for private companies to control territory,= =0Aalthough there was scant sign that entities such as the Hudson Bay Com= pany=0Awere abusive. =09There were exceptions, but they became more uncommon. One latter-day= =0Aadventurer, James Brooke (1803-68), helped suppress a rebellion in Sar= awak; in=0Anorthern Borneo, and was rewarded by the Prince of Brunei with= its=0Agovernorship (1841). That became the basis of a territorial positi= on that led=0Ato him, and to the nephew and grandnephew who succeeded him= , be ing termed the "white rajahs" of Sarawak. Under the nephew, Sir Charles= =0AAnthony Johnson, the territory expanded, and in 1888 Sarawak was conve= rted=0Ainto a British protectorate. The last rajah did not cede Sarawak t= o the=0ABritish crown until 1946 his position had been destabilized by th= e effects of=0AJapanese occupation during World War II. =09Despite the success of the Brookes, opportunities for such activity be= came=0Aless common. They had flourished beyond the frontiers of empire, a= world=0Abrilliantly captured in George MacDonald Fraser's recent Flashma= n novels.=0AThus, in India, the willingness of the locals to turn to Euro= pean weaponry and=0Amilitary methods had provided careers for a number of= European soldiers. The=0Amost spectacular was George Thomas, an Irishman= who deserted the British new=0Ain 1781 and rose, through military comman= d in Indian armies, to independent=0Acontrol of a substantial region betw= een Delhi and the Punjab by 1799. =09Such opportunities disappeared as the regularity of 19th-century gover= nment=0Aswept across much of the world. In addition to authorized nonstat= e violence,=0Aunauthorized nonstate violence, particularly piracy and pri= vately organized=0Aexpeditions designed to seize territory, was also in l= arge part stamped out in=0Athe 19th century. This both demonstrated and e= nhanced the ability of states to=0Amonopolize power, and the European pow= ers, especially Britain, devoted much=0Aeffort to suppressing piracy, esp= ecially off China, in the East Indies, off=0ABritish Columbia, in the Pac= ific, and in the Persian Gulf. =09The banning of the slave trade and the subsequent measures taken to ex= tend=0Aand enforce the bans were also important examples of moves designe= d to end=0Aauthorized, and then unauthorized, nonstate violence. The Brit= ish navy was=0Aespecially active in employing violence against the slave = trade, particularly=0Afrom Africa to the Middle East. The European powers= sought to monopolize=0Amilitary force, both within their European territ= ories and in their colonies,=0Aon land and at sea. An important example o= f a state establishing a monopoly of=0Aviolence was the effort to bring t= he Cossacks of both Ukraine and South and=0ASoutheast European Russia und= er state control, which ultimately left them=0Avulnerable to the Stalinis= t tyranny. The redshirted volunteer force with which=0AGiuseppi Garibaldi= conquered Sicily and Naples in 1860 was absorbed into the=0AItalian army= , and in 1862, when he subsequently formed a private army to=0Acapture Ro= me, then an independent papal state, it was defeated by the Italian=0Aarm= y. Monopolization of violence was linked to state control of societies, whic= h was=0Aa gradual but insistent process. European states first sought to = prevent the=0Ause by partisan groups of organized violence for the pursui= t of domestic=0Apolitical objectives. They also took steps against feuds.= At the personal=0Alevel, the activity of the state was initially less in= sistent, but measures=0Awere nevertheless taken to abolish=97or at least = to limit=97dueling, and to=0Arestrict the ownership of firearms. =09Moves to restrict the ownership of arms were pursued in the 19th centu= ry, at=0Athe very time when there was an increasing emphasis on conscript= ion and the=0Aavailability of military reserves. Governments were determi= ned to control both=0Athe practice of mass recruitment and its consequenc= es. Force was used as never=0Abefore, but it was force by and for governm= ents. =09governments were particularly determined to monopolize arms that had a= =0Abattlefield capability. This was true both of artillery, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: The REAL danger of Assault Weapons in homes - FREEDOM (fwd) Date: 08 Apr 1998 01:25:05 PST On Apr 8, EdgarSuter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Switzerland and It's Armed Citizenry by Stephen P. Halbrook Copyright Chronicles, January 1998, pp. 38-40 Since the origins of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, it has been the dut= y of=0Aevery male Swiss citizen to be armed and to serve in the militia. = Today, that=0Aarm is an "assault rifle," which is issued to every Swiss m= ale and which must=0Abe kept in the home. During Germany's Third Reich (1= 933-1945), that arm was a=0Abolt-action repeating rifle, which was highly= effective in the hands of=0ASwitzerland's many sharpshooters. Americans = of the wartime generation were=0Afamiliar with the fact that brave and ar= med little Switzerland stood up to=0AHitler and made him blink. As a map = of Europe in 1942 shows, the Nazis had=0Aswallowed up most of everything = on the continent but this tiny speck that=0AHitler called 'a pimple Oil t= he face of Europe." The F=FChrer boasted that he=0Awould be "the butcher = of the Swiss," but the Wehrmacht was dissuaded by a=0Afully armed populac= e in the Alpine terrain. As I point out in my forthcoming=0Abook, Target = Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War 11,=0ASwitzerland's hist= ory illustrates the will and ability of an armed citizenry=0Ato resist ty= ranny to the death. =09The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle= =0Acompetition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's ta= keover=0Aof Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had b= een=0Asurrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there woul= d be no=0Aresistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival= , stressing=0Athat something far more serious than sport was the purpose = of their activity.=0AHis comments demonstrated the connection between nat= ional defense and the=0Aarmed citizen: There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the sold= ier=0Ahis weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at h= and. It=0Abelongs to the furnishings of his home.... That corresponds to = ancient Swiss=0Atradition. As the citizen with his sword steps into the r= ing in the cantons=0Awhich have the Landsgemeinde so the Swiss soldier li= ves in constant=0Acompanionship with his rifle. He knows what that means.= With this rifle, he is=0Aliable every hour, if the country calls, to def= end his hearth, his home, his=0Afamily, his birthplace. The weapon is to = him a pledge and sign of honor and=0Afreedom. The Swiss does not part wit= h his rifle. =09On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched World War II by attacking Poland= .=0AWithin a day or two, Switzerland had about half a million militiamen = mobilized=0Aout of a population of just over four million. General Henri = Cuisan, commander=0Ain chief of the Swiss militia, responded with Operati= ons Order No. 2 At the border and between the border and army position, the border hoops = and=0Aadvance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The garr= isons at=0Athe border and between the border and the works and positions = making up the=0Adefensive front continue resistance up to the last cartri= dge, even if they=0Afind themselves completely alone. This astonishing order was the opposite of the policies of the other Euro= pean=0Acountries, which either surrendered to Hitler without a fight or s= urrendered=0Aafter a brief resistance. For example, in April 1940, Denmar= k's king=0Asurrendered the country after a meeting with the Nazis and ins= tructed his=0Aforces not to resist. Norway resisted, although=97unlike Sw= itzerland=97it had no=0Aarmed populace and was ill prepared for combat. =09In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland i= ssued=0Aits "directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under = arms in event=0Aof attack." Intended as a warning to Germany, it was past= ed on walls all over=0Athe country. It prescribed the reaction against su= rprise attack and against=0Athe fifth column as follows: All soldiers and those with therm are to attack with ruthlessness=0Aparac= hutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and=0Anoncomm= issioned officers are present, each soldier acts under exertion of all=0A= powers of his own initiative. This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an ancie= nt=0ASwiss tradition which reflected the political and military leadershi= p's=0Astaunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was possible, = of course,=0Aonly in a society where every man had his rifle at home. =09Under no condition, the order continued would any surrender be forthco= ming,=0Aand any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio, leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubt= ing=0Athe will of the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resi= st an=0Aattacker this information must be regarded =09lies of enemy propaganda. Our country will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the Switzerland, in other words, possessed the most democratic system of nati= onal=0Adefense in Europe. The Nazis were well aware that invasion meant f= ighting on=0Aevery inch of ground (much of it vertical), in every city an= d village, in=0Aevery pasture and mountainside, right down to every man w= ith a rifle. There=0Awould be no easy surrender made by a ruler, as elsew= here. =09The Swiss policy of total resistance is further illustrated by the cre= ation=0Aof the Ortswehren (local defense). It was based on the dictum tha= t "only a=0Atotal defense can oppose total war." By allowing boys and old= men to be sworn=0Ain as members of the armed forces and issuing them an = armband, it permitted=0Athe entire male population to fight and still be = recognized as soldiers under=0Ainternational law. Armed civilians not so = recognized would, if captured, be=0Atreated as Franktireure (lone snipers= ) and shot on the spot. Ortswehr members=0Aarmed themselves either with t= heir own rifles or with rifles received from the=0Amilitary. =09The Ortswehren consisted of former soldiers no longer required to serv= e, the=0AJungschutzen (young shooters), accurate marksmen who were not ca= pable of=0Amilitary service, those with emergency service duties and othe= rs who had been=0Aexempt from the military, and women in the medical serv= ice and fire brigades.=0ABy 1941, its membership totaled 127,563, one-fif= th of the size of the army.=0AHad the Germans invaded, the Ortswehren wou= ld have provided armed civilian=0Aresistance in every locality of Switzer= land, no matter how populous or remote. =09In May 1940, the Nazis attacked Belgium and the Netherlands. After a f= ew days=0Aof fighting, political leaders surrendered, ordering the soldie= rs to lay down=0Atheir arms and discontinue resistance. There was no civi= lian resistance,=0Athanks in part to preexisting firearms prohibitions in= those countries. =09Within days, the Wehnnacht routed the French at Sedan and were expecte= d to=0Aattack Switzerland. General Guisan issued yet another remarkable c= ommand to=0Athe militia. The latest war news, he declared, demonstrated t= hat the French=0Asoldiers could have stopped hostile advances. Instead, d= efections allowed the=0Aenemy to penetrate through gaps, which quickly wi= dened. In contrast, Cuisan=0Arecalled the high duty of the soldier to res= ist: Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of e= ach=0Afighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assig= ned=0Aposition. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their = position=0Auntil no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next.... T= he machine=0Agunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, = if in the bunker=0Aor on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapo= ns, or allow the enemy=0Ato seize thefrom its init= ial=0Adevelopment, and of flintlock musket in the 18th century. Furthermo= re, by the=0A16th century, most sophisticated fortifications were under c= entral government=0Acontrol, and, by the 18th, they all were. Even though= personal weapons were of=0Ascant value against the increasingly powerful= armies of the state, European=0Astates sought to control their ownership= . =09Gun control fused the regulatory ambitions of government and the=0Aant= idemocratic nature of ancien regime Europe. Thus only those trusted by=0A= government were allowed to possess firearms. Thanks to hunting, this had= =0Adirect economic consequences. For example, in Normandy, in order to pr= otect=0Athe monopoly of hunting by the nobility, the peasantry was prohib= ited from=0Apossessing arms. Under a regulation of 1766, a simple denunci= ation by a noble=0Acould lead to a peasant's house being searched and the= culprit jailed for=0Athree months without recourse to the ordinary court= s. In Poland the right to=0Awear a sword in public was restricted to the = nobility. Hierarchy and the=0Acontrol of the countryside was reflected in= the limitations of rights to=0Ahunting by the English Game Acts of 1485 = and 1604. Freeholders lost ancient=0Arights to hunt on their own land, th= anks to the greater property=0Aqualifications introduced by the second ac= t. Thus, the American claim to the=0Aright to bear arms was as much a dec= laration of social emancipation as of=0Apolitical freedom. =09Force in the 19th century was increasingly concentrated at the disposa= l of=0Aauthority, especially the authority of the state. Thus, in the 186= 0's, a large=0Aarmy and the use of terror subdued peasant opposition to t= he government in=0Asouthern Italy. Professional police forces increased s= tate power. In Britain,=0Aa professional police force replaced the yeoman= ry and the sometimes=0Aincompetent constables. Peel's Metropolitan Police= Act (1829) created a=0Auniformed and paid force for London. This trend w= as extended by acts in 1835=0Aand 1839, and the County and Borough Police= Act (1856) made the formation of=0Apaid forces obligatory. The new polic= e largely replaced individuals as=0Aprosecutors in cases of criminal just= ice in England and Ireland. In most of=0AEurope, policing was brought und= er the control of central governments. =09This process of increased state control over violence was seen even in= the=0AUnited States, where traditions of individualism were strong and the ownership of personal weapons widespread. Neverthele= ss,=0Aever since the North's victory in the civil War, the central govern= ment has=0Aincreasingly viewed political opponents and nonconformists as = lawless rogues=0Awho needed to be controlled if not suppressed. This deve= lopment was especially=0Aevident in the severe suppression of personal li= berties during World War 1, in=0Athe "Red Scare" and Palmer Raids of 1919= -20, as well as in regional conflicts=0Asuch as California's "Little Civi= l War' over water rights in 1924, when=0Aranchers in the Owens Valley ble= w up the aqueduct to Los Angeles and seized=0Athe aqueduct's principal di= version works. Three years later, when the bombing=0Aof the aqueduct was = resumed, the city of Los Angeles sent trainloads of guards=0Aarmed with s= ubmachine guns, and this show of force proved effective. =09While the ancien r=E9gime had distinguished between social groups in d= eciding=0Awho could bear arms, the totalizing democracies of the modern w= orld have=0Aproved reluctant to vary their power to control. In Britain, = as a result of=0Athe Firearms Control Act of 1920 (and its revision, the = Firearms Act of 1968),=0Ait is necessary to show "good reason" to own a g= un=97and defense against crime=0Ais not just cause. In 1997, the use of h= andguns was banned as a consequence of the killing of children by a deranged gunm= an in=0ADunblane, Scotland: by that logic, the motorcar should have long = been banned.=0AThe Dunblane killings were in fact the product of the fail= ure of the=0Aregulatory system, not of the private ownership of guns. Kil= lings by licensed=0Agunowners were rare, and the change in the law only m= ade unlicensed ownership=0Amore likely, thus leading in all likelihood to= calls for more and more police=0Asurveillance. Thus, unlike in the Unite= d States, the British people are more=0Adependent on the police in order = to protect themselves, and this, of course,=0Athe police are unable to do= . Criminals know this, and they know that their=0Avictims will be unarmed= . =09Crime and insecurity are both aspects of the crisis of Western society= at the=0Aclose of the millennium. This sense of helplessness, itself fue= led by the=0Agovernment's monopolization of the means of force, is then u= sed by the central=0Astate to justify suppressing still more personal lib= erties and the right to=0Aself-defense. The state presents this process a= s natural and logical, as the=0Aonly solution to the problems that plague= us. But it is nothing of the sort.=0AIt is simply government doing what = government does best: monopolizing power. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - m. Then the crews fight further like= riflemen. As long as a man=0Ahas another cartridge or hand weapons to us= e, he does not yield. Cold steel. Never surrender if any weapon is available. This was the trad= ition=0Aof the fierce medieval Swiss soldiers who defeated many times the= ir numbers=0Aand spread terror in the hearts of their enemies. What would= have been the=0Afate of Europe had the countries that fell to Hider embr= aced such a warrior=0Acode? =09France collapsed in June 1940 after only a few weeks of fighting. Pari= s was=0Ataken without a shot being fired. The Nazis promptly proclaimed t= he death=0Apenalty for possession of firearms in France and other occupie= d countries. =09Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe by bluffing central authorit= ies=0Ainto capitulation. In some cases, after a few meetings and threats,= Nazi=0Ahenchmen convinced the political leaders of an entire nation to s= urrender and=0Ato direct the armed forces not to resist. In other cases, = the surrender would=0Acome after a brief fight, for which the armies were= unprepared. There was no=0Aneed to order the people not to resist, becau= se they were unarmed. =09In contrast, Switzerland hardly had a central government, and it had a= =0Amilitia instead of a standing army. Power was decentralized. The first= unit of=0Apower was the individual and the family, with its household an= d its rifle.=0AThen came the village or city, then the canton, and finall= y the federal=0Aparliament. It was power from the bottom up. =09A 1940 Newsweek article characterized Switzerland as the world's oldes= t and=0Apurest democracy where, in three cantons, government was still co= nducted by a=0Ashow of hands in public squares at the Landsgemeinden. The militia had no officer higher than a colonel in= =0Apeacetime. "Even when there is no European war on, every member of thi= s=0Amilitia army of some 500,000 keeps his gun, ammunition, and equipment= at home=97=0Amaking the Swiss Government the only one in Europe which tr= usts such a large=0Aproportion of citizens with arms." =09What this meant to the Nazis was that they would have to conquer Switz= erland=0Aright down to the last man. And many of these men would be snipi= ng=97from steep,=0Ahidden Alpine positions=97at German troops with rifles= which were accurate at=0Along ranges. There would be no surrender. =09The April 1944 issue of American Mercury included an intriguing articl= e by=0AEdward Byng entitled "If Switzerland is Invaded." In that event, w= arned Byng=0Ademolition would begin in seconds "Terrific explosions [woul= d] rend the air=0Aall along the Swiss frontiers, as if hundreds of avalan= ches were thundering=0Adown the mountain slopes of the land." All bridges= over the Rhine would=0Acollapse, and mines would await invaders who trie= d to cross by rafts or=0Aamphibious tanks. The Simplon and the St. Gottha= rd tunnels would be destroyed.=0ARoads, railways, bridges, power stations= and air fields would be blown up.=0ACamouflaged tank traps and electrifi= ed barbed-wire fences would stop many=0Apanzers and infantry. =09Both World War I and Hitler's blitzkrieg attacks demonstrated to the S= wiss=0AGeneral Staff the need for a lightning mobilization. If the order = were=0Abroadcast, every soldier on or off duty would grab his rifle and r= eport to a=0Anearby post. Byng continued: Switzerland has only a citizen mili tia.... It is the pride of the country that every citizen is allowed to = keep=0Ahis army rifle and ammunition in his house. So orderly and ethical= ly advanced=0Ais the population of this model country that there is rarel= y a case where this=0Aofficially sanctioned and encouraged custom leads t= o violence. With her main=0Ainaccessible mountains, her passionately libe= rty-loving population famed for=0Amarksmanship, Switzerland is a classic = background for guerrilla warfare. The Alps were "honeycombed with bomb and gas-proof shelters, . . . pillbo= xes=0Aand perfectly concealed nests for snipers, advance machine gun and = flame-=0Athrower units." Just as they had done at Morgarten in 1315, when= they launched=0Aboulders down the mountainsides to crush the Austrian in= vaders, the Swiss=0Acould create landslides and avalanches that no infant= ry or armored divisions=0Acould survive. "The world's model democracy, Sw= itzerland, is thus on the=0Aalert, in trigger readiness to teach the Nazi= s a costly lesson should=0Adesperation or arrogance tempt them to attack.= " There was no holocaust on=0ASwiss soil. Swiss Jews served in the militi= a side by side with their fellow=0Acitizens, and kept rifles in their hom= es just like everyone else. It is hard=0Ato believe that there could have= been a holocaust had the Jews of Germany,=0APoland, and France had the s= ame privilege Indeed, just bare recognition of a=0Aright to keep arms wou= ld have saved lives. The heroic Warsaw ghetto uprising=0Aof 1943, after a= ll, began when Jewish resisters acquired just ten handguns. =09Swiss-bashing has become fashionable in the American media in the past= two=0Ayears, but Senator Alfonse D'Amato, who has done more than any to = stir up the=0Afrenzy, just does not have the same credibility as Winston = Churchill, who=0Awrote in December 1944: I put this down for the record. Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the= =0Agreatest right to distinction. She has been the sole international for= ce=0Alinking the hideously sundered nations and ourselves. What does it m= atter=0Awhether she has been able to give us the commercial advantages we= desire or=0Ahas given too many to the Germans, to keep herself alive? Sh= e has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self defence among her mountain= s,=0Aand in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side. Stephen P. Halbrook is an attorney in Fairfax, Virginia. His latest book,= =0ATarget Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, will be pu= blished=0Athis spring by Sarpedon. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: [Fwd: 1997 Ratings Now Available] (fwd) Date: 08 Apr 1998 05:50:49 PST On Apr 8, Donald Walker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ---------- > From: Charles H. Cunningham > To: chuckc@cc.org > Subject: [Fwd: 1997 Ratings Now Available] > Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:31 PM > Apparently-To: chuckc@cc.org NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 7, 1998 105TH CONGRESS MORE LIBERAL THAN 104TH, SAYS ACU'S KEENE; CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS ARE RIGHT TO GRIPE WASHINGTON, DC -- "The current Congress is significantly more liberal than the last Congress. Complaints by outside conservative interest groups with the Republican leadership aren't just based on perceptions -- they're grounded in reality," said American Conservative Union chairman David A. Keene today in releasing the ACU's 1997 Rating of Congress at a Washington, D.C. press conference. "Conservative scores are down across the board in both the House and the Senate. The numbers don't lie." The ACU ratings, compiled annually since 1971, assign each Member of the House and Senate a numerical score on a 0-to-100 scale according to their support for the conservative or liberal position on actual House and Senate votes. The ACU scorecard uses votes on economic and budget matters, social and cultural issues, defense and foreign policy concerns, and institutional reform issues to create a balanced picture of an individual Member of Congress' ideological predisposition. ACU's annual ratings are available on the Internet at www.conservative.org in an interactive format, which lets users "vote" on the same issues faced by Members of the House and Senate so as to compare their own positions with those of their elected representatives. The impact of President Clinton's 1996 reelection, the maturing of the GOP leadership, and a reduced GOP majority in the House is clearly reflected in the scores, Mr. Keene noted. "Republicans held on to the House with a smaller margin than they held before, after having learned the hard way that you can't run the government from Capitol Hill. It shows up in both the overall scores and in the type of legislation that's been coming to the floor," he said. "The average House Republican score has moved from a 90 in the last session of the 104th Congress to an 84 in the first session of the 105th Congress. So not only are there fewer Republican Congressmen, but the ones who are there are voting less conservatively than they did previously. "House Democrats, perhaps finally realizing that their hopes to recapture control of the House rest on their ability to redefine themselves and move back to the political center, have taken steps to do just that," Mr. Keene continued. "The average House Democrat score went from a 13 in the final session of the 104th Congress to a 20 in the first session of the 105th." "But a different dynamic is evident in the Senate vote ratings," said Mr. Keene. "There, despite a net gain of two Republican seats, the average Senate Republican moved even further left than did his House counterparts -- from an average score of 88 in the second session of the 104th Congress to a mere 78 in the first session of the 105th. Senate Democrats, unlike their House counterparts, haven't moved to the center in similar fashion; instead, they've moved even further left: the average Senate Democrat scored a 13 in the second session of the 104th Congress, but only an 8 in the first session of the 105th. "Many conservative activists have complained that the GOP leadership, which owes its position to millions of grass-roots conservative activists all over this nation, has failed to implement a conservative agenda," Mr. Keene noted. "The 1997 ACU vote rating demonstrates that they've got a point. Conservative scores are down across the board, with Senate Republicans leading the move to the left. "Majority Leader Trent Lott, for instance, moved from a perfect 100 percent rating in the second session of the 104th Congress to a 72 in the first session of the 105th. That's a 28-point shift left in just one year. No wonder conservatives are complaining," Mr. Keene continued. Mr. Keene suggested that in this election year, voters can do themselves a favor by using the ACU ratings to compare rhetoric with action. "Americans in most respects are fundamentally conservative," he said. "They continue to favor smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, a hard line on crime, more choice in education, and they generally support traditional social values. But as our ratings have shown time and time again, many politicians skillfully exploit those themes on the campaign trail until they get into office -- at which time they vote for liberal policies. Our ratings are one way voters can learn to separate the phonies from the real McCoys and make sure they don't get stuck with closet liberals masquerading as bona fide conservatives." The American Conservative Union, established in 1964, is the country's oldest conservative grass-roots lobbying organization. On behalf of its nearly one million members and supporters nationwide, it lobbies on a wide range of issues before the Congress. To schedule an interview, please contact Tom Katina at (703) 836-8602. ---------------------- All inquiries regarding this message should be directed to acu@conservative.org The American Conservative Union's Web page is located at http://www.conservative.org [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: Excellent Analysis Of Rush Limbaugh (fwd) Date: 09 Apr 1998 07:45:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org Topic: White Water G-Man Outruns Rush Essay April 8, 1998 Nick Schuessler While Rush Limbaugh still holds the edge in the conservative talk radio host ratings, G. Gordon Liddy has wrested away the title as "the cutting edge of societal evolution." It's been a long, interesting tale. Along the way we can also see how conservatives carry the seeds of betrayal in their own success. Rush's decline began back in 1992 with an overnight stay in the Bush White House. From his debut in 1988 until 1992, Rush's program grew to a major force in conservative politics. With the 1992 presidential elections, the Bush camp faced a major problem: could they keep Rush quiet in light of the "read my lips" betrayal? During that spring, Rush had already toyed with Pat Buchanan, so the concern was real -- especially in light of a strong challenge from the (then obscure) Democrat Bill Clinton. Co-opting Rush would seem to be a difficult problem. He was beyond bribery or threats, and his radio program was huge and influential. In fact, Bush needed Rush much more than vice versa. Rush was not, however, beyond flattery. In his youth, L:imbaugh had been the quintessential nerd -- chubby, socially inept, craving peer acceptance to please his upper middle-class parents. It was very nearly textbook. Now, through his own talents and a series of accidents, he was suddenly of interest to the same people who teased and dismissed him 30 years earlier. It must have been a thrill for somebody like Rush to be treated like an important insider. No matter that in their private moments Bush, Baker, and the others still saw him basically as a parking valet. It worked. Bush's feigned hospitality turned Rush, even though George lost the election. Afterwards, the Republican establishment continued to carefully cultivate Rush. The effort wasn't to generate criticism of Clinton; Rush was already on track with that. The goal was to make sure that Rush didn't use his influential soapbox to criticize the Republican sellouts -- like John Kasich's help in gun confiscation legislation, or the FBI massacre at Waco. Again it worked, but at some cost to Limbaugh's credibility. As he made excuse after excuse for Republicans, he watched his audience growth stop, then turn around, and then decline. Callers who tried to discuss the change were dismissed. The name-dropping in the monologue increased and grated. The insider friendships even affected his political analysis. Example: we're still not sure what's going on when Rush talks about TWA800. Is it Rush? Or is it his good friend, Jim Kallstrom, who conducted the investigation? The technique here isn't all that difficult. You can almost write the scenario yourself. Just construct a good cover story that admits to some lesser explanation, then appeal to Rush's good nature to help. "Rush, Rush. You're a smart guy. I'm not going to try to scam you. I'm going to come clean with you. There was something funny going on with TWA800. We've pulled our hair out trying to figure out what it was. We don't have anything solid, but the crazies out in Montana are saying 'terrorist' or 'aliens' or whatever. Now the pressure is on me to get out a report; it is going to say 'mechanical failure.' You and I know better, but we have to give them something right now. Should we destroy the careers of a bunch of good, honest FBI agents over this? Including mine? Can you help us out on this one, Rush?" It was a brilliant strategy by the Republican elite. While Rush is worrying about Clinton's zipper, Newt is passing a minimum wage increase and a new telephone tax. Dr. Laura is currently within striking distance of grabbling first place, and G. Gordon Liddy is the fastest growing political talk show. In light of these ratings reversals, it was interesting to watch Rush's consternation. He still denies that he changed his tone after the Bush subordination. During the Dole campaign, Rush embarrassed himself carrying water for the man Newt called "the tax collector for the welfare state." Newt himself turned Rush's show into the Gingrinch Hour. (Rush claims a "no guest" policy, but Newt could seemingly appear at will.) During this same time, Liddy was outing "Confidential Witness" in a nasty surprise for the FBI's Foster cover-up. Fortunately for the FBI, Ken Starr was willing to continue the Fisk fairy tale. Liddy was also hammering Kasich and the other turncoat Republicans, doing serious commentary about Waco and Ruby Ridge, and getting out in front on the real Clinton scandals. Rush was still parroting the establishment Republican line and losing audience in the process. In fact, recently there's been a hint of confusion and hurt in his voice. He's obviously been reassured by Newt and the others that all is well. But he keeps seeing Clinton's agenda enacted. He's not devious enough to believe that his "friends" would deliberately betray him. Instead, he turns on his fans, claiming they obviously don't have his "insider's" perspective to see that patience is the key to everything. "Just hang on. Just wait for [fill in the blank]." Starr's report, the mid-term elections, the next poll, the impeachment hearings, etc. As Rush fades, we should show some genuine gratitude for his contribution. He single-handedly pioneered the whole conservative talk radio movement. When he says that he brought AM back from the dead, it's not hyperbole. In the early days, skits like the "caller abortion" and the Kennedy sinking were brilliant parodies of the left. After the Bush disaster, he was the only real voice in the wilderness. In the end, Rush fell victim to the Buckley Syndrome. From the 1950's to the 1970's, Bill Buckley was also the only conservative game in town. He was co-opted by New York liberals, and Buckley conservatism was henceforth defined as what Bill could say and still get invited to the fashionable cocktail parties on the upper West Side. With Rush it's cigars instead of cocktails (or maybe both), but the result is the same. In some moments of pure irony, Rush talks about the need for excellence, about how Gates is afraid of the newcomers, about how Letterman knows how elusive the edge is. He's never able to apply this to himself. Whether it's a misdirected sense of loyalty, or just a blind spot, he's unable even to this day to see the manipulation. Let's hope that he never hears his handlers laughing at him. G. Gordon Liddy seems to show more staying power than Rush. Liddy never expected to end up as a convicted felon and radio talk show host. His character wasn't formed from teen worries about acceptance. So G-Man has a better set of tools to deal with the Republican types trying to subvert him. The Stacked and Packed calendars are just as outrageous as the caller abortions, and Liddy has the occasional interesting guest. He's already moved ahead of Rush in the conservative edge -- Foster, Waco, the IRS and other major government abuse. He's rapidly closing the distance on the political analysis as well -- Rush's last remaining strength. G-Man isn't quite as available on as many stations as Rush, but then there was the time when Rush, too, was hard to find on the AM dial. The Host is Dead. Long live the Host. Posted by: Nick_S (nicks@delphi.com) * 04/08/98 12:10:59 EDT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Law vs. executive order Date: 09 Apr 1998 16:33:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Law vs. executive order PTR The U.S. Constitution long ago became a dead document in Washington, D.C. But that didn't stop President Clinton from giving it another kick Monday. By executive order, Mr. Clinton blocked the import of 1.6 million military-style rifles from American shores as an extension to the 1994 congressional ban on "assault weapons." With the stroke of a pen, the president permanently banned 58 semi-automatic weapons, most of them cosmetic variants of AK-47 rifles, that he decided had no sporting use on American soil. "They were never meant for a day in the country and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets," he said. The president is right on both counts. Hunting a deer with an AK-47 would leave very little edible venison to store in the freezer and such a weapon in the hands of criminals who prowl at night is indeed a troubling thought. But, as usual, Mr. Clinton's clever sound bites miss the point. The Second Amendment states that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says nothing about the government having the right to qualify certain firearms for the public's use, or to release a list of approved hunting weapons. Further perusal of the Constitution reveals that the executive branch does not have the power to legislate by whim through executive orders. The National Rifle Association promised to pressure Congress to overturn Clinton's gun ban. A legislative branch with an understanding of constitutional law should not require the prodding of the NRA to do its duty and thwart Clinton's attempt to exercise absolute power over the citizenry. =============================================== =============================================== [16] Grand Jurors Shown Photos Of Truck Before Bombing 04/09/1998 By Judy Kuhlman TO An Oklahoma City attorney brought with him pictures he took after the federal building bombing as he went to testify Wednesday before the Oklahoma County grand jury investigating the bombing. Russell B. Fister, 61, showed reporters and photographers one of the pictures. He said the picture proves the Oklahoma County bomb squad truck was in downtown Oklahoma City minutes before the bomb exploded at 9:02 a.m. April 19, 1995. Other grand jury witnesses have said they saw the bomb squad truck downtown minutes before the explosion. They believe the presence of the bomb truck before the explosion proves the government had prior knowledge. Bill Grimsley, an Oklahoma County deputy and bomb squad truck driver, said he drove the truck from the sheriff's training center at NE 36 and Air Depot Boulevard, where he was when the bomb exploded, to the downtown area. Fister's picture shows the truck traveling north on Harvey toward the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Grimsley said Harvey was one of the streets he traveled. Harvey is a north-south street that runs past the bomb site on the west side. The picture shows no debris swirling in the air. The large black cloud of smoke that appeared immediately after the blast does not appear in the picture. There is a smaller smoke cloud in the picture. No time or date appears on the picture. Fister said he took the picture immediately after the blast. Since it began meeting at the Oklahoma County jail on June 30, the grand jury has heard testimony from 99 witnesses and read the deposition of a witness who died before he had could testify. Meanwhile, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, is seeking a congressional inquiry into the attack that resulted in the deaths of 168 people. Convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh, 29, was sentenced to death last summer. Convicted conspirator Terry Nichols, 43, is awaiting sentencing for his role in the attack. Key, who spearheaded the petition drive to call the grand jury, said he has gone to Washington, D.C., and talked to an Oklahoma congressional representative about a possible inquiry. Key would not name the representative. He said the representative is willing to sponsor the inquiry, but is not ready to say so publicly. "Yeah, I just still don't want to talk about who it is or isn't until we get down the road, until they are ready for that," Key said. Representatives of six of the eight members of Oklahoma's congressional delegation denied talking to Key. Some denied knowledge of any request for an inquiry. Key also said he has new evidence that shows the government had prior knowledge of the bombing. But Key would not say what the evidence is. He also said the evidence is not ready to be presented to the grand jury. Key said he wants the congressional inquiry, regardless of the outcome of the grand jury. Grand jurors have been investigating larger conspiracy theories, including prior knowledge by the federal government. On a short-wave radio talk show Monday, Key said he believes some of the 12 grand jurors are hostile toward him. He doubts grand jurors will return an indictment. "We feel very strongly that there is a half dozen that are very serious and not controlled or influenced by some ideology or the government's position on this," Key said during the talk show. An indictment would require nine jurors. Key told The Oklahoman on Thursday he was only assuming that some of the grand jurors were hostile. "I was just playing the numbers game," he said. Key's Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee also is running radio advertisements criticizing Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy. The ads accuse Macy of not supporting the grand jury investigation and of not seeking "the truth or justice" in the bombing. Macy said Wednesday he assigned two "outstanding attorneys" and a veteran investigator from his office to the grand jury. "We have done everything in our power to find out what the truth is," the district attorney said. =============================================== [33] World Court Urges a Stay In Virginia Capital Case Associated Press WSJ [Editors Note: We better term limit a bunch of politicians and get in some people that will reduce the size of the UN by about 98% and tell them to tend to their own business.] THE HAGUE -- Intervening in a death-penalty case for the first time, the World Court requested a stay Thursday in Tuesday's scheduled execution of a Paraguayan man in Virginia. It was unclear what affect, if any, the ruling would have in Virginia, which condemned Angel Francisco Breard for a murder and attempted rape in 1992. The World Court, the highest judicial body of the United Nations, has no enforcement powers and relies on countries to comply voluntarily with its decisions. Its final decision could take years, though the 15-judge court promised to speed up its deliberations. "The court orders the United States to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision of the court," the court said in a unanimous decision. Paraguay had fought for the stay of execution, contending that Mr. Breard was not informed of his right to consular assistance after his arrest, as required by the 1963 Vienna Convention. "It is a vindication of international law. It is a decision we were waiting for," said Manuel Caceres, Paraguay's representative at the court. Paraguay has claimed that if Mr. Breard had been able to seek advice from consular officials, he likely would have pleaded guilty in a pretrial plea bargain and escaped the death penalty. The U.S. says it has no dispute with Paraguay over the Vienna Convention and that the World Court therefore has no jurisdiction in the case. Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore has said he will follow U.S. court decisions. Mr. Breard has a clemency appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. In January, a U.S. federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit Paraguay had filed against Virginia. A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was disturbed that Virginia failed to follow the Vienna Convention but ruled that the Constitution prohibits foreign governments from suing states. Mr. Breard, 30, was convicted of stabbing Ruth Dickie, 39, five times on Feb. 17, 1992, in Arlington. He told police he intended to rape her, but ran away when he heard someone knock on the door. =============================================== The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping Service." We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political Columns and Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into one text file, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with "Hard Copies" of newspapers. We do NOT charge for the material. NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. To subscribe to TPD and/or TPDP mail Cash, Check, or money order to: Wayne Mann 1079 Farroll Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE just send an e-mail message with the word subscribe TPDL in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net. To stop receiving the TPDL just send an e-mail message with Unsubscribe TPDL or in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net. Thank you. No Charge, it's FREE. ============================================= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: A Mysterious Case of Executive Privilege Date: 09 Apr 1998 16:56:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For education and discussion. Not for commercial use. Insight Magazine Online (http://www.insightmag.com) April 8, 1998 Jamie Dettmer By Jamie Dettmer Arlington: A Mysterious Case of Executive Privilege . . . . From being loath to invoke executive privilege because of inevitable comparisons to Richard Nixon, the White House isn't half making up for lost time. Not only is President Clinton using executive privilege to shield his conversations with top aides such as Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he now has invoked it to block congressional investigators from securing memorandums concerning waivers he granted for burials at Arlington National Cemetery. One of the memorandums being held back from the House Veterans Affairs Committee relates to the controversial waiver granted by Clinton for Ambassador Larry Lawrence's interment at the national cemetery. According to what is called a "privilege log," sent to the committee by White House counsel Charles Ruff, the blocked memo -- numbered ANC 000018 -- is a letter "from Deputy Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs regarding Ambassador Lawrence's burial." The others -- numbered ANC 000019 to ANC 000023 -- consist of a cover letter related to the Lawrence burial and "a list of persons buried at Arlington Cemetery." A congressional GOP source says committee investigators were taken aback when they received the privilege log from Ruff. "The White House hasn't explained why it is invoking privilege," says the source. "The vets committee folks are astonished. What could the White House be trying to cover up?" Lawrence's body was dug up shortly after Insight published a series of articles reporting on the alarming number of waivers granted by the Clinton administration for burials at the military's most hallowed final resting place. The State Department's inspector general has made a criminal referral to the Justice Department concerning the late ambassador, whose body was removed from the cemetery after it was discovered his World War II record had been faked. Historically, presidents have invoked executive privilege only on rare occasions when the disclosure of presidential communications might undermine national security. Following Nixon's failed assertion of privilege over the Watergate tapes, presidents of both parties have been cautious about resorting to executive privilege. "How these memos involved national security, heaven only knows," says a Capitol Hill source. "I suppose they'll argue they are protecting the 'deliberative process' in the White House." ========================================================================== 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 http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/09safi.html The New York times April 9, 1998 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE End the Secrecy WASHINGTON -- Never in modern constitutional history has the Federal judiciary so undermined the First Amendment. Six weeks ago, the President made a sweeping assertion in court to create a new privilege of executive secrecy on matters having nothing to do with national security -- and the court let him do it in secret. For the first time, a judge is considering extending this claim of being above the criminal law beyond the President himself, to his wife and everybody on his staff -- in secret. And the legal arguments protesting the closure of hearings surrounding this change in the public access to the official operations of our government have been filed and answered - -- in secret. Here we have a great constitutional issue involving the usurpation of power. It deserves scholarly debate and a thorough airing. But Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson -- a Carter appointee insecure about public scrutiny of her peremptory rulings on the most profound matters affecting our system of government -- has sealed the constitutional pleadings and, in the President's delighted interpretation, sealed all lips. Judicial secrecy is being used to cloak a reach for greater executive secrecy. The President claims (1) he may delegate, and need not take responsibility for, asserting executive privilege; (2) that the First Lady is a Federal official who may make that claim for herself against criminal investigators; and (3) that his claimed immunity from investigation covers personal wrongdoing as never before contemplated in law. Yesterday, attorneys for a dozen of America's leading news organizations including The Times were at last permitted by a Court of Appeals panel publicly to protest this government in the darkness. Judge Johnson's reason for an iron curtain is to protect grand jury secrecy. But the truth is that the news organizations are not seeking access to proceedings into criminal matters properly guarded by rule 6(e). On the contrary, they want to put on the record substantive legal arguments about the principle of executive privilege -- in which the public has an indisputable right to participate. The judge fears that an occasional need to clear the courtroom to uphold rule 6(e) would be "too disruptive." That's some excuse for subverting the Bill of Rights. The appeals panel, mirroring the widespread hostility toward the media, yesterday seemed to defer to that fear. Who besides the judge opposes public debate about the expansion of Presidential power? Not the Independent Counsel, who we now learn has urged that the court release documents prepared by White House lawyers detailing the President's claims. One party seeking to block serious public discussion of a principle of law affecting the whole American people is the publicity-hungry lawyer for Monica Lewinsky. The other party urging that the public be barred at least until transcripts are delayed and sanitized by the White House is President Clinton, despite his pretense that he knows nothing about the privilege claim only he can make. His lawyers argue that debate about the power claim is inextricably intertwined with Rule 6(e) material. That's a smokescreen. Not only can this constitutional argument be "bifurcated" from the rest of the case, as lawyers say about separation, but capable Federal judges know how to hold trials without divulging genuine national secrets. Grand jury proceedings have long been protected without "disruption" and without denying public access to ancillary hearings dealing with fundamental issues. This usurpation is being kept out of sight because a judge is not prepared to wield a gavel in open court. Forget Clinton; forget sex; forget lying; where are the civil libertarians and strict constructionists who care about equal justice, the separation of powers, the right of the people to have a voice in the great decisions that affect our future? It's been 42 shameful days since the President's secret claim to be more than an ordinary citizen under the law. The last President to claim executive privilege did it in open court. All the briefs were on the record. Judge John Sirica polled the grand jury in open court without "disruption" and the media reported the decision instantly. But that was in another country. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ========================================================================== 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: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Law vs. executive order Date: 09 Apr 1998 16:24:18 -0700 Here's my take on the first bit of this message "Law vs. executive order" as sent to my friend Jim. Thought I'd fwd that to the list for heat value. >Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:21:10 -0700 >To: Jimb@wrq.com >From: Boyd Kneeland >Subject: Law vs. executive order >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Jim, > >>Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:33:55 -0500 (CDT) >>From: >>To: restore our constitution , >> against constitutional terrorist >>Subject: Law vs. executive order >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Sender: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com >>Precedence: bulk >>Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > >Paul is a regular on this list, ROC stands for restore our constitution. > > >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>Law vs. executive order >>PTR > >Dunno what either of those mean, exec orders are law BK > >> The U.S. Constitution long ago became a dead document >> in Washington, D.C. But that didn't stop President Clinton >> from giving it another kick Monday. >> >> By executive order, Mr. Clinton blocked the import of 1.6 >> million military-style rifles from American shores as an >> extension to the 1994 congressional ban on "assault >> weapons." With the stroke of a pen, the president >> permanently banned 58 semi-automatic weapons, most of >> them cosmetic variants of AK-47 rifles, that he decided >> had no sporting use on American soil. > >Sporting use is a standard first raised in the gun control act of 32, >there are credible (IMHO) references indicating it was first used as a >"standard" by wich some types of firearms could be regulated and banned in >post Weimar Germany. It became interesting to me last week, when I read an >opinion issued by the BATF that International Practical Shooting >Confederation and specifically it's US sanctioning body the United State >Practical Shooting Association is not "officially" a "sport" recognized by >the Federal Government of the United States (as of that date). > >> "They were never meant for a day in the country and >> they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets," he >> said. The president is right on both counts. Hunting a deer >> with an AK-47 would leave very little edible venison to >> store in the freezer > >Proving that "allies" of the pro gun movement can be it's worst enemies. >AK47's like most military calibers fire small fast bullets that do leave >tissue damage but typically have much -less- energy then the larger (.308 >etc) calibers typically used in hunting. Like hunting has anything to do >with anything. > >>and such a weapon in the hands of >> criminals who prowl at night is indeed a troubling thought. > >Obvious bullshit. Wich would you rather face on a street at night, a doped >up teen swaggering across the street shouting at you, or a doped up teen >swaggering across the street shouting at you carrying a gun that cannot >possibly be concealed? Give me the blood with the rifle -any- day. He's >not gonna know how to hit the broadside of a barn and -I'm- gonna have >plenty of warning of his intentions. This is -typical- of the "regulation" >of firearms in this country. The first GCA was an emotional response to >the St. Valentines day "massacre" and pushed thugs into more accurate >heavier duty weapons (from the wimpish thompson sub gun to colt 45 >handguns and italian sub guns). The Brady law instituted the fastest >buying craze on the publics part in history (before passage) and moved the >buying "fashion" from large (harder to conceal) small caliber high cap >guns back to larger caliber handguns that were extremely concealable after >its passage. Now we hear about laws proposed banning guns as "saturday >night specials" (a racist term) simply on -size-, they couldn't be any >more obvious. > >> But, as usual, Mr. Clinton's clever sound bites miss the >> point. The Second Amendment states that the "right to >> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says >> nothing about the government having the right to qualify >> certain firearms for the public's use, or to release a list of >> approved hunting weapons. >> >> Further perusal of the Constitution reveals that the >> executive branch does not have the power to legislate by >> whim through executive orders. The National Rifle >> Association promised to pressure Congress to overturn >> Clinton's gun ban. A legislative branch with an >> understanding of constitutional law should not require the >> prodding of the NRA to do its duty and thwart Clinton's >> attempt to exercise absolute power over the citizenry. > >'Course the Birchers would argue about the legislation by whim thing (SA >the martial conspiracy of '33) But I think anyone interested in Liberty of >any kind should be worried about the unconstitutional use of Exective >orders, or Presidential directives as they're now called. >Boyd > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Plans for Emergency Military Powers and Domestic Control (fwd) Date: 09 Apr 1998 18:58:44 PST On Apr 09, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, This comes from Gary North's page (http://www.garynorth.com). The actual piece has other links built into the article that I was not able to reproduce here. So, here is the link to the original itself so you can go over and follow the other links contained in the article. I think that this is one that we must pay attention to!! http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/1319 En Agape, Gene The following article appreared in PARAMETERS, the scholarly publication of the Army War College. It appeared in Autumn, 1997. The author is a member of the Judge Advocate General's office.=20 The recent moves to consolidate the National Guard and the Army Reserves into domestic control units are consistent with what appears here.=20 The legal basis of this transformation of the Army is the Stafford Act (1984; amended, 1988). Since 1993, it has been incorporated into Army strategy under the acronym OOTW: operations other than war.=20 Note the importance of FEMA: the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The full text of the Stafford Act is found on FEMA's Web site.=20 The author warns us: "Civilian and military leaders need to expect an increase in domestic deployments of US military forces."=20 Pay careful attention to these words:=20 "Strategic leaders can take solace in the lessons learned from military participation in domestic disaster relief, for the record indicates that legal niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern. The exigencies of the situation seem to overcome legal proscriptions arguably applicable to our soldiers' conduct. Pragmatism appears to prevail when American soldiers help their fellow citizens."=20 If these words bother you as much as they bother me, why, then, you're obviously an alarmist. And if you pass this information on, you'll become a scaremonger.=20 There's nothing like the fear of becoming a scaremonger that will silence a computer programmer working on y2k who figures out that the problem is systemic, it can't be fixed, and that y2k will create crisis conditions. The programmers' unofficial guild will excommunicate him for raising these questions in public.=20 Given what's coming, this threat should not be perceived by anyone as anything significant. But it is. So, I have wound up as John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness. But it's sure a lot better than crying in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago, where most mainframe programmers live in the U.S.=20 * * * * * * * * *=20 Disaster Relief Operations=20 The US Army had a remarkable experience in responding to the devastating onslaught of Hurricane Andrew in south Florida in August 1992; Hurricane Iniki on the island of Kaui in Hawaii one month later evoked a similar response. Both instances provide ample evidence that there is a reliable mechanism to facilitate the employment of active-duty Army units in times of great national disaster. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1984, as amended in 1988 (42 US Code Section 5121 et seq.), commonly referred to as the Stafford Act after its legislative author, is the authority under which such assistance is provided. The Stafford Act is applicable only within the United States and its territories, and comes into play when a state, usually through its governor, requests a presidential declaration of a state of emergency following a natural disaster. Once a state of emergency is declared, active-duty soldiers can be employed to respond to the crisis under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These situations present unique legal issues. . . .=20 The unprecedented destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on 19 April 1995, raised another important legal issue affecting disaster relief operations. As one might imagine, all the resources of local, state, and federal government agencies were mobilized to deal with this shocking act of domestic terrorism. FEMA served as the primary focal point of relief operations, and Army assets were provided under the terms of the Stafford Act. FEMA officials were on the scene within hours of the explosion, and specialized rescue teams followed closely. The entire reaction has been categorized as a masterful melding of state and federal resources. However, the internal FEMA report[15] underscores a natural tension between the rescue effort and the FBI which may be increasingly important in the future. The FBI, as part of the Department of Justice, determined that the entire area was a crime scene for the purposes of apprehending and successfully prosecuting the perpetrators of the bombing. The rescue effort's only goal was recovering survivors or their remains. This natural conflict must be resolved in order to facilitate the nation's response to the increasing threat of similar incidents.=20 Strategic leaders can take solace in the lessons learned from military participation in domestic disaster relief, for the record indicates that legal niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern. The exigencies of the situation seem to overcome legal proscriptions arguably applicable to our soldiers' conduct. Pragmatism appears to prevail when American soldiers help their fellow citizens.=20 Civilian Law Enforcement=20 Military support to law enforcement agencies seemingly will present more problems for senior leaders than those encountered in disaster relief. At first blush, this entire area appears to be outside the scope of military operations. As previously mentioned, the Posse Comitatus Act provides a broad proscription against soldiers enforcing the law. However, subsequent congressional acts granting exceptions to the original prohibition of Posse Comitatus have significantly altered the manner in which the armed forces may assist law enforcement. Congress began to carve out these exceptions in response to the perceived increase in importation and use of destructive illegal drugs. Under more recent legislation, the Army can provide equipment, training, and expert military advice to civilian law enforcement agencies as part of the total effort in the "war on drugs." In addition, troops of the active Army are authorized to provide a wide range of support along the borders with the caveat that a "nexus" be established between illegal drugs and the support given. The principle example of the contentious nature of such support can be found in a review and analysis of the support provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) by the Army under the operational control of Joint Task Force 6 (JTF 6), during the siege and assault of David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas. . . .=20 The specter of members of the Army's special operations forces accompanying BATF agents storming a religious compound, however misguided its leader, could have seriously compromised public support of the US Army. Had the initial request been approved (it was) and acted upon (it wasn't), this could easily have been the single most debilitating event to occur within the Army since the tragedy at My Lai. In fact, this occurrence could have been even more egregious because it would have taken place on American soil, would have been a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and would have raised the issue of military involvement in a case of alleged religious freedom. . . .=20 Finally, leaders can take heart from the fact that the training and experience of today's soldiers allow them to make the right decisions in situations fraught with career and personal implications. Granted, in this instance the soldiers were mature commissioned and noncommissioned officers with substantial operational experience. . . The next area of consideration focuses on those discrete instances when the President of the United States relies on his constitutional and statutory authority to maintain public order and domestic tranquillity. Those who consider the Posse Comitatus Act a giant bulwark preventing the Army from enforcing the law will be surprised to learn that the relevant enabling mechanism is fairly straightforward. The language of the act itself specifies that activities expressly authorized by the Constitution or by statute are exempt from the act's restrictions. One such exception is the statutory authority of the President to use federal troops to quell domestic violence. Upon receipt of a proper request for assistance from a state governor, the President issues a proclamation identifying that a breakdown in public order has occurred, and orders the intransigent individuals to disperse. Once it is clear that the order to disperse is not being followed, the President then orders the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, to quell the insurrection and restore public order. This presidential authority to use federal troops is plenary and not subject to judicial review. . . .=20 Counterterrorism=20 The second series of lessons related to the military helping civil law enforcement agencies to maintain public order and domestic tranquillity is derived from the FBI experience at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. It should be noted that the incident at Ruby Ridge was classified as a generic hostage-barricade situation and not a terrorist incident. . . .=20 The UnitedStates has for many years fielded military units specifically equipped and trained to deal with terrorist threats throughout the world. With the growing prospect of terrorism in our own country, the probability of domestic employment of the US military to counter terrorism has grown substantially. The FBI experience at Ruby Ridge provides lessons for such employment. . . .=20 =95 There is a growing awareness that many US law enforcement agencies are ill equipped to deal with heavily armed terrorist organizations. The spectacle of police rushing to a local gun store to borrow high-performance weapons in March 1997 during a shoot-out in California defines the nature of the threat and a possible response to it by the average local police department. We can expect a degree of asymmetry between terrorists and law enforcement personnel that will almost inevitably trigger an intervention by the military. Our police are neither constituted, nor trained, nor equipped to deal with paramilitary assaults on our citizens. Simply stated, the scope of a terrorist action may be beyond the capability and resources of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the preeminent civilian law enforcement entity trained and equipped for this role.=20 =95 The introduction of military units into such situations adds to the difficulty of applying law enforcement standards of self-defense or defense of other agents in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm before using deadly force. If the military is deployed to eliminate terrorists and restore a situation, they must be employed as they have been trained. That training is intended to succeed with minimum friendly casualties using military rules of engagement. Hence any member of a group participating in such an incident on this specific form of battlefield could by definition be considered a threat and subject to attack. . . .=20 Commanders of any unit likely to be committed in aid of domestic law enforcement agencies confronting terrorists will want to ensure that our soldiers are the most capable, best equipped, and best trained they can possibly be. The operational plan will have to be developed, coordinated, and approved at the highest level of government. The final requirement will be for the government to stand behind its decisions and acknowledge errors without attempting to make scapegoats of those at the tactical level. This course of action will allow the United States to apply its military resources successfully in support of civilian law enforcement to meet a very real and growing terrorist threat. . . .=20 Civilian and military leaders need to expect an increase in domestic deployments of US military forces. They need to recognize that each instance of use is accompanied by new and possibly unprecedented challenges. America's leaders should recognize that the relationship between America's Army and the American people is strong but may be compromised. Public confidence in the military can best be maintained by strict adherence to the legal underpinnings governing domestic operations of the armed forces. Applying the lessons learned from the early 1990s will maintain the excellent relationship between the people and the military well into the next century.=20 Link:=20 http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97autumn/lujan.htm [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Talk about sneaky... (fwd) Date: 09 Apr 1998 18:59:20 PST On Apr 09, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, Well, while doing some nosing around I came across something that will blow your socks off!! Do you recall a while back that as part of the Immigration legislation a recommendation was made to come up with a real ID for citizens that would include some sort of biometric data (fingerprint, voice, etc.). There was such an outcry it was apparently scrapped -- NOT!!!! Hidden away in HR 3610 dealing with national defense on approximately page 650 is the requirement that each state implement some form of biometric information on a magnetic strip on the driver's license by NLT October 1, 2000. If they don't they lose government funding for highways and such. If you want to check this out, go to http://www.mcwebs.com/repeal/ Now, let me tell you that there are already four states doing it -- Texas, Colorado, Georgia, and California. I believe that North Carolina may have started as well, but my wife isn't home so I can't check her new DL. If ever there was a time for Christians to finally stand up, make it now!! This is being done so quietly that most people don't even know that it is being done. In addition, they are using your SSN for your DL number in most states now. They have no legal right to do that, and if you raise a stink, they will come up with a number -- especially if you make sure that they know that it is against federal law to use the SSN for such a purpose and you will turn this over to your attorney for his action. They don't want the boat rocked. So, what can you do? First, contact your state's DMV and find out if they have plans to implement this biometric intrusion. If you don't have the address and a contact, write me privately and I'll give it to you. Second, contact both your state legislators and federal legislators and let them know that you know what is being done. Find out where they stand and express strong disapproval of such biometric identification in very clear terms. And demand that your state reps commit to fighting this from happening in your state, or overturning it if it has already started in your state. Third, contact Cyndee Parker at the above Web page and keep informed. Folks, this is a major threat to our freedoms and privacy. Once all Americans are biometrically identified, they can do whatever they please to us. If they don't like our religious views, they can cut us off at the pass by taking away our DL. And making it against the law to buy or sell without the proper identification card -- which would include the biometric data. And if you have any contacts in the media, get this to them, too!! This was done in secret and hidden from the people. Such government is tyrannical and must be stopped now! En Agape, Gene [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: Affidavit of Nolanda Hill (fwd) - Why Ron Brown Had To Go??? Date: 10 Apr 1998 07:20:49 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: act@efn.org Cc: Multiple.Constitutionalist.Mailing.Lists@wakko.efn.org On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:04:30 +0000, "Distribution@Vigo-Examiner.com" wrote: Affidavit of Nolanda Hill IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. Plaintiff v. Civil Action No. 95-0133 (RCL UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Defendant _______________________________________ Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill I, Nolanda Butler Hill, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. This affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge. 2. I have been a resident of Texas for all of my life and still reside there. 3. Up to the death of Ronald H. Brown, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, I was a business partner and/or close personal confidant for over seven years. During this period, I spoke with Ron, as I used to call him, daily, and frequently several times per day. I was thus intimately knowledgeable about both his personal and professional activities. I also had contact with his family, including his son, Michael, and his daughter in law, Tamara, who worked for me for approximately five years. 4. During the course of my relationship with Ron, I was privy to his activities, and the activities of the people who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere. Since Ron died on April 3, 1996, I have also been in contact and spoken with many persons who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere. 5. After the elections of 1992, Ron became Secretary of Commerce. Shortly thereafter, Ron decided that he would focus the majority his activities at Commerce on trade missions. 6. In the fall of 1994, I became aware, through Ron and Jim Hackney, Ron's Counselor at Commerce - with whom I was and remain close - that a group called Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA requests to obtain information and documentation about the trade missions. Both Jim and I encouraged Ron at the time to give due consideration to the seriousness of these FOIA requests, as there were politically sensitive issues surrounding the trade missions. 7. After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats' loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House. 8. In the spring of 1995, when this Court ordered production of documents to Judicial Watch, Ron became very concerned and he thus began to discuss with me the strategy of handling the defense of the Judicial Watch lawsuit. 9. I further learned through discussions with Ron that The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with court's orders. 10. In late fall 1995, after several rulings or statements by this court, Ron himself became more involved in the defense of the case. Specifically, he told me that he had decided to personally review any documents that might be damaging to the Clinton Administration, or in any way be sensitive. Ron told me that he was very worried about the potential damage of the Judicial Watch case to the Clinton Administration. 11. In early 1996, Ron showed me a packet of documents, about 1 inch thick, which he removed from his ostrich skin portfolio. Ron told me that these documents had been provided to him from Commerce Department files as part of the collection efforts to produce documents to Judicial Watch in this case. I reviewed the top five or six documents, which were on Commerce Department letterhead under the signature of Melissa Moss of the Office of Business Liaison. What I reviewed comprised letters of Ms. Moss to trade mission participants, each of which specifically referenced a substantial financial contribution to the Democratic National Committee (DNC. My response was immediate and decisive. I told Ron he must instruct that production of these documents and all responsive documents be immediate and I advised him to mitigate his own damages by releasing Ms. Moss from her duties and admonishing her for using the offices of the Commerce Department for partisan political fundraising. 12. I then saw Ron call the Commerce Department and he spoke with Melissa Moss. He told her that he wanted to meet with her later. I do not know if the meeting ever took place and I had no further discussion with Ron, because of his untimely death, about the documents I had reviewed. 13. I have reviewed the deposition video of Melissa Moss and, based on my knowledge, she has not told the truth in response a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath. 14. I would like to come forward and tell this court everything I know about the failure to produce documents to Judicial Watch and this court. I am concerned, however, that if I do so, the Clinton Administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me. As a result, I look to this court for guidance on how I can come forward and tell all I know in the interest of justice. 15. Because of a fear for my personal and my family's well-being and safety, I ask that this affidavit be kept under seal and that a mechanism be set up by the court for me to come forward to tell all I know. Sworn to under penalty of law. __________________________ Nolanda Butler Hill. Date [signed Jan. 17, 1998] Witness __________________________ D. R. Bustion II [Judicial Watch, P.O. Box 44444, Washington, DC 20026. Tel: (888 JWETHIC, Fax: (202 646-5199. Contributions are tax-deductible. Copyright 1997, Judicial Watch. All Rights Reserved.] ---------- Published in the Apr. 6, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly. Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly http://www.federal.com. Reposting permitted with this message intact. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com Enjoy a 90 day free trial subscription to the email edition of The Vigo Examiner. To receive one or two of the top stories or editorials by email each day, send your request to Editor@Vigo-Examiner.com. -- The BlackTech Mailing List - This list is maintained by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr. To post a message to this group send mail to: The Black Tech Mailing List - Channel BlackTech opens *most* evenings around Midnight CST. When you log on to an "Efnet" IRC server, type: /join #BlackTech. If you wish to be removed from this list, send a reply with "REMOVE BLACKTECH" in the Subject line. Enjoy! Hope to see you there! - Jian on BlackTech IRC Chat - Efnet - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Republicans Should be champions of Freedom Date: 10 Apr 1998 16:28:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- For education and discussion. Not for commercial use. Republicans Should Be Champions of Freedom The Manchester Union Leader April 10, 1998 Richard Lessner REPUBLICANS ARE SAID TO BE searching for a message to carry them into the November election. May I offer a modest proposal? The Republican message should be freedom. That's all, just freedom. We don't talk about freedom much anymore. We take it for granted that we live in a free country, but increasingly we don't. Americans have become servants indentured to government. The average American family shells out 40 percent of its income on local, state and federal taxes. This is roughly what we spend on food, housing, transportation and medical care combined. The average American works from New Year's Day until May 9 just to pay for government. And you still say this is a free country? As the Heritage Foundation points out, even under Medieval feudalism, the serfs only had to turn over a third of their output to the lord of the manor. Yet serfdom was considered little better than slavery. Doubtless most Americans would bristle at the suggestion that they are little better than serfs. Then consider how the dead hand of government reaches into almost every corner of our lives. Government touches almost everything in our daily lives. It is almost impossible to do anything in this country without first obtaining the permission of some level of government, without getting a license or a permit, without bumping into some governmental rule or regulation. We've gotten ourselves into the predicament because, slowly and over time, we have forgotten the purpose of government, the reason for which we created it. As a panelist at a recent Republican gubernatorial forum in Derry, I asked the candidates a deceptively simple yet profound question: What is the purpose of government? Not one of the three, I am sad to report, came close to answering. This is because we've forgotten how to think about government. Mostly today we think that government's purpose is to "solve problems." And since there is no shortage of "problems," there is no limit on what we believe government should be doing. What is the purpose of government? It's simple: The purpose of government is to secure to ourselves and our posterity those unalienable rights to the freedom with which we have been endowed by our Creator, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government exists, we created it, to advance freedom -- personal, individual freedom. Like Jefferson, I prefer a government that barely escapes being no government at all. Freedom is the natural state of man. So instead of getting bogged down in wrangling over which and how many problems government is going to solve -- though in truth government rarely "solves" anything since that is not its purpose -- and instead of engaging the Democrats in a bidding war over how much government the respective parties can deliver, Republicans should begin talking about freedom. Now, it's true that freedom is a tougher sell than dependency. It's hard to convince comfortable serfs that they would be better off free. Liberals, socialists and other feudal lords have figured out that you can win elections by promising to do all manner of wonderful things for the serfs -- and even force them to pay for such benefits. It's harder to tell people that what's best for them is the freedom to do things for themselves, but it must be done. Freedom is good for people. Republicans have to rediscover their faith in freedom. They need confidence that freedom can be a winning issue at the polling place. Republicans should cast every campaign issue in terms of freedom. Americans would be better off were parents free to send their children to the schools of their choosing. We would be better off were we free to choose our own doctors and control our own health care through medical savings accounts. We Americans would be better off were we free to invest our earnings in our own personal retirement accounts. Smoking is a filthy habit, but Americans should be free to decide for themselves if they wish to risk shortening their lives. Cheeseburgers are loaded with cholesterol, but we should be free to decide what to eat. Wouldn't it be better were we free to keep more of the money we work so hard to earn? As I say, freedom is a tough sell. Many people do not really wish to be free. This is why tyranny has to be resisted over and over again. Most people, as philosopher Erich Fromm pointed out four decades ago, secretly desire to "Escape From Freedom." Freedom implies responsibility and we humans, lazy creatures that we are, tend to prefer that others shoulder responsibility for our lives. It's easier to let someone else do the thinking and make the decisions. And human nature being what it is, down through history, from pharaohs to kings to dictators to social engineers, we've never had a shortage of elites willing to take on the job. If, however, Republicans were to raise the banner of freedom, then they would energize the GOP base. This is important. Off-year elections, in which there is no Presidential glamour to bring out the marginal voters, tend to become contests of party bases. Right now, Republicans have done little to energize their base. While it is true that the natural governing majority in the country is generally conservative, Republicans nevertheless must do something to energize this majority. Offering warmed-over Clintonism and a me-too-only-a-little-less statism is guaranteed to demoralize the GOP base and keep voters home on Election Day. Republicans in the coming election, then, should champion freedom -- clearly, joyfully, unapologetically, exuberantly. We must rekindle the spark of liberty that, surely, yet flickers in the American nation. The Union Leader ========================================================================== 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: Brad Subject: Unconvential Party Wins in Colorado (fwd) Date: 10 Apr 1998 17:34:29 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Unconvential Party Wins in Colorado By SANDY SHORE GLENDALE, Colo. (AP) - What began as a mundane election in a bedroom community turned into a free-for-all over restrictions on strip clubs. The newly formed Glendale Tea Party, which invoked the American Revolution in claiming city leaders were running roughshod over individual and property rights, won all three seats that were on the ballot in Tuesday's nonpartisan election. Now Shotgun Willie's, one of two strip clubs in a Denver-area community dominated by businesses, apartment complexes and condominiums, is a political power base. ``I don't think they realized people like the club,'' said owner Debbie Matthews. ``The support we had was heartening.'' Small business owners backed the Tea Party candidates, who included a landscape project design manager, a nurse and a print shop owner. The losing candidates, supported by Mayor Joe Rice and other local leaders, wanted the city to attract families and more permanent residents. They contended the Tea Party was a political machine that spent thousands on the campaign. The most publicized issue was a proposed ordinance to tighten strip club regulations. The club owners said the law would have quickly put them out of business. ``We were being taxed. We had representation that did not give a fig about us, but was putting our property in jeopardy,'' said John Hill, owner of Mile High Saloon, the other strip club. Built on roughly a square mile surrounded by south Denver, Glendale has about 4,000 mostly low-income residents, who typically stay less than a year. The city has just three single-family homes. Glendale's daytime population swells to about 25,000 workers in retail, office complexes and two telemarketing centers. In years past, Glendale was known for its taverns, restaurants with celebrity clientele and strip clubs. But in the 1990s, city leaders began making changes designed to draw more permanent residents and families. Rice, who was elected mayor in 1996, said the city has built a 3-acre park on a former dump, added sidewalks, broke ground on a recreation center and reduced property taxes by 40 percent. But small business owners believe Rice and the council members targeted some businesses, particularly liquor license holders. The number of liquor license holders dwindled from 40 or 50 in the early 1990s to just three today, according to Ms. Matthews. The strip club ordinance was approved earlier this month, but has not taken effect. It would raise the age limit for dancers from 18 to 21, and impose a 6-foot barrier between the customers and the dancers, among other requirements. When the ordinance proposal surfaced, Ms. Matthews and others rallied about 40 residents and small business owners to create the Tea Party. Hill and Ms. Matthews maintained city leaders wanted to close their clubs to make way for redevelopment. Rice denied this: ``There are a lot of projects that just made sense to do. There were no secret meetings. Everything was public,'' he said. During the campaign, the Tea Party also opposed state legislation backed by Rice that would have allowed Denver and Glendale to adjust their boundaries without voter approval. They also questioned the cost of a city-financed $2.9 million education center, among other issues. The Tea Party invested at least $11,000 in the campaign, while Citizens for a Better Glendale, which supported the opposing candidates, said it raised about $550. One of the first orders of business for the new council probably will be the repeal of the strip club ordinance. ``I'm feeling positive about the community for the first time in years,'' Hill said. ``I'm not feeling like I'm on death row hoping for a phone call from the governor.'' - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: [Fwd: White House Database doc: ORDERING THE SELECTED RESERVE OF THE ARMED FORCES TO ACTIVE DUTY] (fwd) Date: 10 Apr 1998 14:38:05 PST On Apr 10, JVS wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3F3DDB726781BD952E212EE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------3F3DDB726781BD952E212EE1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from server1.ols.net (root@server1.ols.net [206.27.1.1]) by Kirk.NetUnlimited.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA28532 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ws-dialin7.ols.net (ws-dialin7.ols.net [206.27.13.10]) by server1.ols.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00289 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804101540.LAA00289@server1.ols.net> X-Sender: preacher@ols.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hey brother, heres more troops that won't be of any help to us in time of need! In christian love, bro. John >X-Sender: eagleflt@mail.eagleflt.com >Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 23:29:15 -0400 >To: "72113.1673"<72113.1673@compuserve.com> >From: "eagleflight----uNITED STATES Theatre Command----David E. Rydel" >Subject: White House Database doc: ORDERING THE SELECTED RESERVE OF THE > ARMED FORCES TO ACTIVE DUTY >X-UIDL: 2dee810647c5954692f0f5622191fa30 > >>>>> >Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 18:37:23 -0600 >From: "David E. Parsons" >To: Y_M >Subject: White House Database doc: ORDERING THE SELECTED RESERVE OF THE ARMED FORCES TO ACTIVE DUTY > >Could this explain the increase in Military activity? >http://library.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/web_fetch_doc?dataset=Dataset-Executi veOrder&db=ExecutiveOrders&doc_id=181&query=april+1998+executive+orders >
> > > White House Database doc: ORDERING THE SELECTED RESERVE OF THE ARMED FORCES TO ACTIVE DUTY >---------------- > > >Executive Orders > >ORDERING THE SELECTED RESERVE OF THE ARMED FORCES TO ACTIVE DUTY > > >---------------- > THE WHITE HOUSE > > Office of the Press Secretary > >________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release February 24, 1998 > > > > EXECUTIVE ORDER > > - - - - - - - > > ORDERING THE SELECTED RESERVE OF THE ARMED FORCES TO ACTIVE DUTY > > > By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 121 and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active armed forces of the United States for the effective conduct of operations in and around Southwest Asia. Further, under the stated authority, I hereby authorize the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Department of the Navy, to order to active duty any units, and any individual members not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, of the Selected Reserve. > > This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. > > > WILLIAM J. CLINTON > > THE WHITE HOUSE > ><http://www.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/pagegen.cgi><http://www.whitehouse.gov/W H/html/library.html><http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/html/helpdsk.html> > >---------------- >To comment on this service: <http://www.whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/Correspondence/Mail_Developers>feedback@w ww.whitehouse.gov --------------3F3DDB726781BD952E212EE1-- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: [Fwd: TOTAL BAN ON HANDGUNS STARTS TODAY] (fwd) Date: 10 Apr 1998 14:38:57 PST On Apr 10, JVS wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3089E8BDB5F6EED9B6E5BF95 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a must read! --------------3089E8BDB5F6EED9B6E5BF95 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from server1.ols.net (root@server1.ols.net [206.27.1.1]) by Kirk.NetUnlimited.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA18317 for <farout@netunlimited.net>; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:17:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ws-dialin7.ols.net (ws-dialin7.ols.net [206.27.13.10]) by server1.ols.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA28760 for <farout@netunlimited.net>; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804101517.LAA28760@server1.ols.net> X-Sender: preacher@ols.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >X-Sender: eagleflt@mail.eagleflt.com >Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 23:39:07 -0400 >To: "72113.1673"<72113.1673@compuserve.com> >From: "eagleflight----uNITED STATES Theatre Command----David E. Rydel" <eagleflt@eagleflt.com> >Subject: TOTAL BAN ON HANDGUNS STARTS TODAY >X-UIDL: b6de7c746ee4391b43efac2d24ae6f88 > >>>>> >Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 18:52:57 -0600 >From: "David E. Parsons" >To: Bub2433 >Subject: TOTAL BAN ON HANDGUNS STARTS TODAY > >We are next if HCI gets their way. >http://www.twoten.press.net/stories/98/01/26/headlines/LEGAL_Guns_Ban.html ><BUSINESS_Racal.html>Previous Release <index.html>Return to Index <SEA_Raf_Rescue.html>Next Release >TOTAL BAN ON HANDGUNS STARTS TODAY >TOTAL BAN ON HANDGUNS STARTS TODAY > A major step forward in public safety was made today as a total ban on handguns came into force. Following the hand-in last year of large-calibre weapons, the Government extended the ban to small-calibre weapons. A month-long hand-in period, beginning on 1 February, will now take out of circulation those small-calibre weapons which have not already been given up voluntarily. Emphasising public safety is the Government's number one priority, Home Office Minister Alun Michael said: ''Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Following the successful removal last year of large-calibre handguns, this second hand-in will fulfil the Government's commitment to improving public safety by removing the remaining small-calibre handguns from our society. ''In 1996, there were 294 incidents reported to the police in which handguns were stolen. By prohibiting handguns, there will be fewer legally-held weapons at risk of theft and being used in crime. ''Owners of small-calibre handguns who hand in their weapons during the surrender period will receive compensation under the scheme agreed by Parliament. ''We have received over 40,000 claims so far and made over 26,000 payments totalling nearly 31 million. Staffing has been increased and weekend work introduced to make progress as quickly as possible on payments, including the additional claims we now expect for the remaining small-calibre handguns. ''The current turn round time is around 21 weeks and though we understand the frustration of those who are awaiting payment, claimants can help speed the process by trying not to make enquiries about the progress of their claim. Answering these questions can create further delay by increasing the already heavy workload of staff. ''A recorded message, which is regularly updated, giving details of the latest processing times is available on the enquiry line 0171 271 8977. ''The last hand-in period went smoothly, thanks to the hard work of the police and officials, and the responsible attitude of many gun owners. As with the last surrender period, gun owners are being contacted by their local police and being told when they need to hand in their weapons. ''Though we appreciate that many gun owners regret losing their sport, we now urge them to hand in their weapons before the end of February. The penalties for illegal possession are severe - the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment - and guns must be handed in before the end of February in order to qualify for compensation. ''I believe that by taking firm, decisive action, the Government has put a firm brake on the development of a dangerous gun culture in the UK.'' Notes for editors 1. The Firearms Amendment Act 1997 banned large-calibre handguns from general use. As a result, a total of 116,000 such weapons were handed in. During this large-calibre hand-in, an additional 26,000 small-calibre weapons were surrendered voluntarily. 2. The small-calibre handguns surrender period will begin on 1 February and last until the end of February. Claims for up to 10,000 pistols and equipment are expected under this final hand-in. 3. The total cost of compensation for both small and large-calibre weapons is expected to be 166 million. >---------------- ><#top>Return to the top of the page > >---------------- > 1997 Two-Ten Communications Limited --------------3089E8BDB5F6EED9B6E5BF95-- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Repeal Sporting Purposes Test (fwd) Date: 10 Apr 1998 17:25:11 PST On Apr 10, Douglas Davis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Return-Path: <goamail@gunowners.org> >Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:58:33 -0400 >From: Gun Owners of America <goamail@gunowners.org> >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <goamail@gunowners.org> >To: goamail@gunowners.org >Subject: Repeal Sporting Purposes Test > >GOA Denounces Clinton Gun Ban >-- Calls for passage of Rep. Paul's "sporting purposes" repeal > >by Gun Owners of America >8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, >(703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org >(Friday, April 10, 1998) > > >On Monday, Gun Owners of America condemned President Clinton's >move to ban the importation of 58 semi-automatic firearms. >GOA spokesmen conducted interviews and appeared on national >talk shows to denounce the ban, which covers designs based on >AK-47, FN-FAL, HK 91 and 93, Uzi and SIG SG550 rifles. > >"President Clinton has simply affirmed what he has always >believed," said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners >of America. "Clinton really believes that the Second >Amendment is about duck hunting." > >This recent gun ban also helps expose the incremental approach >to banning guns that Sarah Brady's organization (HCI) has been >pushing for years. Indeed, in discussing the then-upcoming >import ban last October, one White House official was quoted >in the Los Angeles Times (10/22/97) as saying, "We are taking >the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole >new class of guns." > >GOA was quick to point out, however, that the blame for this >ban does not entirely fall on the president's shoulders. >"Congress must repeal the unconstitutional sporting purposes >test," said Pratt. "And the best way to do this is to pass >Rep. Ron Paul's bill." > >Pratt was referring to H.R. 2721, a bill in Congress that >would repeal the sporting purposes provisions of the 1968 Gun >Control Act. "If Congress were to repeal that aspect of the >'68 Act, the President would not be empowered to circumvent >the Constitution by enforcing unconstitutional regulations," >Pratt said. > >The President has capitalized on provisions of the 1968 Act, >stipulating that imported firearms must be "particularly >suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." > >This "sporting purposes" distinction is an unconstitutional >hairsplitting that bans the import of some firearms merely >because they are used to defend one's family, rather than to >shoot deer. > >The Second Amendment does protect hunters and sportsmen - but >only within a larger context. The founding fathers realized >that Americans would use their firearms to protect >themselves, their families, and their country. > >HERE'S WHAT TO DO: > >1. Urge your Representative (1-800-504-0031) to cosponsor >H.R. 2721. This bill, introduced by Rep. Paul (R-TX), would >not only repeal the "sporting purposes" test, it would also >repeal the onerous Brady registration law and the Clinton >semi-auto ban of 1994. Repealing the sporting purposes test >would forever remove the ability of future Presidents to ban >guns based on "sporting purposes" criteria. > >2. Gun owners in the states below should contact the >Republican members of the Treasury Appropriations >Subcommittees. Congress can amend the Treasury appropriations >bill to defund the ability of any administrative official from >keeping the above-mentioned firearms out of the country. Urge >the Congressmen below to introduce and support an amendment >stating that no Treasury funds may be used to enforce the >Clinton import ban. > >House/Senate Republicans on Treasury Appropriation Subcoms. >All fax numbers begin with "202" > > Fax E-Mail >Rep. Aderholt (AL) 225-5587 >Rep. Kolbe (AZ) 225-0378 jimkolbe@mail.house.gov >Rep. Forbes (NY) 225-3143 mpforbes@mail.gouse.gov >Rep. Northup (KY) 225-5776 >Rep. Istook (OK) 226-1463 istook@mail.house.gov >Rep. Wolf (VA) 225-0437 >Sen. Shelby (AL) 224-3416 senator@shelby.senate.gov >Sen. Campbell (CO) 224-1933 >Sen. Faircloth (NC) 224-7406 senator@faircloth.senate.gov > >*********************************************************** >Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of >getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider >joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service >is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume >is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week >indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward >this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your >state of residence in either the subject line or the body. > > > > ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net ******************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Tactical Notes, was: Inspiration... (fwd) Date: 10 Apr 1998 18:39:23 PST Recently on the FAP list, (Firearms And Politics), someone mentioned that in order to weed the jerks out of Politics, we had to get out and Vote in the Primary/Secondary Elections. This doesn't cut it in that the proper Political entry point for this is at the _Caucuses_ not the Elections. At the Caucuses, the Agendas, Party Planks, and Candidates are approved or rejected, Incumbents garner support or not etc., _then_ the Elections happen. As I've mentioned before, if enough like minded folks flood a Local Caucus, they set the Agenda, Party Platform, and Election choices for the Local Party Apparat. Do that in enough Precincts, and you control that Party's State Level setup. Do that across the Country and you control that Party's choices all down the line. It's been further posited that the Republican Party needs to be, "Taken over", in order to get rid of those who aren't carrying out the Agenda they were elected to implement. While this is to some extent true, _both_ Parties need a physic. Why leave a voice for those trying to destroy the Promise of the American Dream in _either_ Party? We have to face the facts that until _both_ Parties clean up their act, things will continue to get worse, and that _WE_ are the ones whose job it is to do it. Many of us have been garnering experience in, "Third Parties", and other Groups. Unfortunately, many of us have also garnered some level or other of disapointment at how marginalized our efforts can be at times, our Agendas and/or Candidates ignored or even vilified by other Parties and their Media lapdogs etc., etc. Whether we belong to Christian Coalition, Constitution Party, 2nd Amendment Groups, Libertarian Party, Property Rights Groups, Tax Payer Party, Special Interest Groups, (Pilots, Motorcyclists, Smokers and so on), or United We Stand America, or some other Group/Party, there are some things we can all agree on: We are over Regulated, over Taxed, and far afield from the Constitutional, Civil Government of Laws, not men, we all need and desire, and that those doing these things are doing them with _our_ Tax Dollars. What we can do about it: 1. Get a copy of Robert A. Heinlein's, "How To Take Back Your Country". It's only $6 bucks, and well worth it even if you have to order it. 2. Get in touch with as many of the above Groups/Parties as possible, and have them do the same with the ones they know of. 3. Organize a Coalition Pre-Caucus and prepare to flood _both_ major Parties Caucuses, (if we have enough people), with our own folks. A. Those Issues agreed upon become the Local Agendas that will be pushed. B. Those Issues not agreed upon may still be worked for individually, but aren't properly part of the Coalition Agenda. C. Take note of what Offices are/will be open for new Candidates, and determine if the Democrat-Republican Candidate(s) are suitable. 1. If suitable, organize possible support. 2. If not suitable or unknown, choose and support a Candidate of our own. D. Take note of what Offices have Incumbents we want to support or dump. 1. If suitable, organize possible support. 2. If not suitable or unknown, choose and support Our own Candidate. 4. Choose Representatives to do the above at the State Level Caucuses. 5. Have them do the above at the Part(y/ies) National Caucuses. 6. Most Important: Support and work for the above with mailings, door belling, fund gathering and anything else needed. 7. The goal is to have one of _our_ Candidates as the Primary Election choice in _both_ Parties, for all available Offices for the next several Election Cycles. The means is grassroots networking together, (Coalitions). 8. Pass this around to all the Patriotic Americans you know. 9. As a general rule, Suspect Incumbents, Support a New Guy. 10. Those on the NoBan list take note of the following: Time to gather in all those Coalition building, "Virtual Chips(tm)". The Ol' Blue Wolfie's watching so lets do him proud. ---------- Original Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Ed Lawson" <edlawson@texas.net> Members of TGO: I just recently learned of a great loss to our cause, Jim Bohan, from Paul Watson. Jim Bohan, aka loboazul was a real 'sleeper' if you weren't paying attention. He wasn't into high profile to a lot of people, but his demise is a significant loss and was not reported on TGO unfortunately. Jim was instrumental in the defeat of Tom Foley (x Dem Speaker of the House), pro Second Amendment, and he lived in Yoakum, Texas. It can be done. The following is just one of several pieces he wrote. If you are interested in more, or more on who Jim was, just let me or Paul Watson know. Paul sent me several of the comments made on NOBAN from people who range from the new Governor of Louisiana to Tanya Metaksa, to Fortune Magazine and many more, all of which knew him personally. I met with Jim several times and talked with him via e-mail frequently. For those of you who didn't know him, I offer the following in his own words for inspiration. Ed ----------- GRASS ROOTS REALITY--A Blue Wolf Editorial by Jim Bohan (loboazul@icsi.net) [Editor's Note: Jim Bohan co-manages NoBan, and was recently described by Fortune Magazine as "a master of the new world of cyberpolitics."] It's less than twelve full months until the '96 elections. It's time to get to work. Right now everyone is paying attention to the Presidential candidates and that's to be expected. They get all the ink and electrons and, yes, they're important. But they aren't ALL-IMPORTANT, especially in terms of RKBA. There are two recent examples that make the point. During his presidency, Reagan was a sincere friend of RKBA, yet because of the congresses he had, little was done to secure our rights. On the other hand, Bill Clinton is as great an enemy of the Second Amendment as exists. His first two years proved that, in spades. However, since the Republicans took over Congress, not one single piece of gun control legislation has been presented for his signature. That's one of the reasons I'm going to concentrate my efforts on congressional races in '96. The other reason is that all the sharks, heroes and other forms of major players concentrate on the presidency. Yes, grass roots groups have their influence, but their impact is muted because of the activities of the show horses. A strong, well organized and highly motivated grass roots group, working in concert with (or at least staying out of the way of) a candidate's organized efforts can determine the outcome of an election. If you don't believe it, ask Tom Foley (Tom who?). A lot of the new congressmen, including two of the best (imo) are going to need a lot of help finding their way back to D.C. I'm speaking of Barr of Georgia and Stockman of Texas. In Barr's case, it's because of redistricting; in Stockman's case, it's because a lot of pxxxed off Democrats are putting together a serious war chest dedicated to unseating him. I'm sure there are many others in the same spot. We know internet activism can work, we've made it work. However, in order for it to work, there has to be a viable organization working its buns off in the district. The net is a great way to communicate, but there are better ways to raise money, and all those folks telling you what a wonderful job you're doing can't vote in YOUR district. So, for those of you (all both of you) who aren't part of existing Second Amendment organizations in your district, here's what you do: Leave your monitor screen long enough to go out and find five people in your district who either want to re-elect your pro gun congressperson, or want to defeat the gun-grabbing scum your tax money is sending to Washington D.C. The six of you form some sort of organization, then each of you go out and find five more people, and elicit a promise from them that they'll do the same. And so on. First thing you know, you got a helluva lot of people working together to get someone elected ... or defeated. Once you have a core group, contact other groups. United We Stand America (UWSA) usually supports candidates that are also good on gun rights. It's not that RKBA is a part of their program (it isn't). However, UWSA's generally conservative/reform candidates are usually pro-RKBA. Not always, but it's worth checking with them and working with them where possible. The same with the Christian Coalition. When I first got into this, I assumed they were all nuts. I was wrong. And I doubt there is a single candidate anywhere in the country endorsed by the Christian Coalition that isn't pro-RKBA. We have many of them involved in NOBAN and other RKBA groups, and they're among the hardest and most dedicated workers in the bunch. Where you can, work with them. The same with Libertarians, another group I used to think was nuts. In some areas they run their own candidates, but they're realists and will generally support a candidate who reflects a Libertarian point of view--even if they call themselves something else. Pick up the phone, call them, and then work with them where you can. The main thing is to keep your own agenda simple. I use RKBA as a litmus test for politicians for a very simple reason. A politician who isn't afraid of RKBA isn't figuring on screwing you over so bad you feel the need to destroy government (start a revolution) because he knows you have the means to do it. A politician who wants to take your guns away is figuring on taking away everything you've got. It really is that simple. But some things are simple without being easy. This is one of them. The hard part is just getting off your butt and doing it. And having to go through twenty of your close friends to find the five who will actually work with you, and then learning just how apathetic many, many people seem to be about what's happening today. It's tough as hell getting almost anyone to get up off a dollar bill to support a candidate or your independent expenditure, but that's just how it is. And don't forget the Federal Election Commission (FEC). If you're going to take in money, you have to have an organization. And that organization has to register with the FEC and abide by its rules. So keep your paperwork straight. You already know the why's and the what's, and now you've just read some of the who's and how's. The "where" is in your district if you want a new congressman or to keep the one you've got; or it's in your state if your senator is up. A large number of Democrats are retiring from the Senate. We don't want them replaced with new Clintonites. That only leaves the "when." "When" is now. If you and/or your group figure on being a player in the coming election, it's time to drag yourself out of hot chat on AOL and even cut back on unnecessary e-mail. It's time to pick up the telephone and start taking care of business. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@USIT.NET> Subject: Analysis of Jeffords Bill (fwd) Date: 11 Apr 1998 11:29:36 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thought you would be interested in this analysis of the Jeffords Health Privacy Bill. I received it from a very knowledgeable and reliable source and find it to be a very thoughtful assessment that raises many troubling issues. JRR *********************************************** Joel R. Reidenberg Professor of Law and Director of Graduate Program Academic Affairs Fordham University School of Law 140 W. 62nd Street New York, NY 10023 (USA) Tel: 212-636-6843 Fax: 212-636-6899 Email: <reidenberg@sprynet.com> Web: <http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/reidenberg> *********************************************** + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Analysis of S.1921 Health Care Personal Information Nondisclosure Act of 1998 SIGN OR DIE NOTE: This analysis was independently prepared by an individual who wishes to remain anonymous and may be circulated without limit provided that this disclaimer is included. This analysis may not be quoted or attributed to anyone. At the beginning of April, Senator Jeffords introduced a new health privacy bill (S.1921). Like other health privacy bills, Jeffords' proposal is long and complex. It contains one especially notable and troublesome new feature, and this analysis focuses on that feature and a few others. This is not a comprehensive review of the proposal. Coerced Consent - The biggest single problem with the bill is the patient authorization language in section 202. The effect of this language is to give health plans, employers, and providers the power to decide how patient information can be used and disclosed AND to force patients to agree to whatever the plans, employers, and providers decide. The proposal lacks clear statutory or regulatory limits on the power of health plans, employers, and providers to use and disclose identifiable health information to suit their own interests. Section 202 section provides that every employer offering a health plan, every health plan, and every provider MUST obtain from every individual a signed authorization. As a result, each individual covered by health insurance provided by an employer will be required to sign at least two separate authorization forms: one from the health plan and one from the employer. These are separate authorizations. The spouse of a worker must also sign an authorization, and a parent must sign on behalf of each covered child. Any individual seeking care from a provider may also be required to sign a separate authorization for each provider. Section 202 provides that the signed, written authorization "is a legal, informed authorization concerning the use and disclosure of protected health information for treatment, payment or health care operations." Thus, the terms of the law proclaim that the authorizations are both "legal" and "informed." However, nothing in the bill gives an individual any ability to refuse to sign or to bargain over the contents of the authorization. The law REQUIRES an employer, health plan, and provider to obtain an authorization. What happens if an individual refuses to sign an authorization? The bill would make signing an authorization a condition of enrollment in a health plan or of the provision of health care. As a result, it appears that an individual who refuses to sign loses health insurance or can be denied treatment. The legal requirement to obtain an authorization falls on the employer, health plan, and provider. Without an authorization, each would appear to be legally justified to deny insurance or treatment to anyone who refused to sign an authorization or who modified it in any way. For those who require either health insurance or health treatment, the policy in the Jeffords bill is sign the form or forego treatment or insurance. In other words, SIGN OR DIE. There is no opportunity for bargaining, for customizing an authorization to meet individual needs, or for opting out of a particular disclosure. This is not informed consent. There is nothing consensual about signing. The consent is coerced as a matter of federal law. SIGN OR DIE. Every employer, health plan, and provider can force an individual to sign an authorization form that permits a wide and nearly unlimited variety of uses of health information. Employers, plans, and providers can draft authorization forms to suit their own needs and requirements, without any regard for the interests of patients. Because patients have no choice but to sign, there is no meaningful external constraint on the scope of the authorizations. Scope of Authorizations - The bill provides expressly that the authorization obtained by employers must cover "treatment, payment, or health care operations." Authorizations obtained by health plans and by providers appear to have no similar limitations. Nothing in the Section 202 seems to limit use and disclosure to treatment, payment, or health care operations. However, the title of Section 202 suggests that the authorizations are for treatment, payment, or health care operations so it is likely that the intent is that authorizations obtained by plans and providers under this section are for those purposes. This may just be a drafting error. Disclosures for Treatment - The authorizations under Section 202 would cover disclosures for treatment. Some other health privacy proposals would permit nonconsensual disclosures for treatment. But they provide patients with an opt-out. Under other proposals, if a patient objects to a disclosure for treatment, that objection is effective. Under the Jeffords bill, a patient has no ability to object to any disclosure for treatment. Suppose, for example, that a patient does not want his/her record disclosed to a particular doctor because the patient and the doctor are related. Writing that restriction on the authorization form, however, could result in cancellation of insurance or denial of treatment. Under section 202, patients are afforded no opportunity to modify the authorization forms presented by employers, plans, and providers. A provider or health plan is under no obligation to agree to a patient's request to limit disclosures for treatment. Another hypothetical: Suppose that an employer's authorization form permits disclosure of all patient information as a treatment disclosure to the employer's in-house medical staff. The authority would allow the staff to obtain records of treatment obtained by the employee anywhere else. The employer will say that the disclosure is justified because in-house staff may be called upon to provide treatment in emergencies or otherwise. The consequence is that an employer could force an employee to consent to the routine disclosure of an entire medical record to the employer. An individual cannot refuse to sign an authorization form for treatment. However, an individual can apparently revoke an authorization for treatment. Section 202(c) allows for revocation of authorizations. If a patient signs an authorization and then revokes it in whole or in part, it is not clear what the consequences are. The bill makes signing an authorization form a condition of enrollment in a health plan. If an individual can revoke consent for disclosures for treatment, then the concerned individual could do so immediately after signing the required form. This would make the federally mandated consent a nullity. It is unclear how the "condition of enrollment" language meshes with the revocation authority. Disclosures for Payment - The authorizations required under section 202 would cover disclosures for payment. Some other legislative proposals would permit nonconsensual disclosures for payment. But they provide that if a patient and provider arrange for payment other than through an insurance company, then disclosures for payment are not permitted. In other words, a patient can agree to pay out of pocket without an insurer or employer learning about it. The Jeffords proposal does not allow an individual to refuse to sign a consent for disclosure for payment under any circumstances. However, the individual may later revoke that consent. Section 202(c)(1) says that an individual may revoke an authorization unless disclosure is necessary for payment for health care already provided and for which the individual has not agreed to assume financial responsibility. The requirement for signing and later revocation is crucial because it makes it much more difficult for a patient to exercise control. Suppose, for example, a patient pays for psychiatric care without relying on insurance. The careful patient, having signed the initial, required authorization form, then revokes it in part so that it no longer covers the psychiatric care. This appears to be permissible. But if on renewal of the health policy or on a subsequent visit to the psychiatrist's office or to another health care office, the patient signs the standard authorization again, failure to renew the revocation will vitiate the initial revocation and make the records now available for a subsequent payment disclosure. The structure of the Jeffords bill makes it particularly difficult for patients who want to pay for their own care to prevent information from slipping into the payment system. Disclosures for Health Care Operations - This is the biggest loophole in section 202 because of the lack of specific definitions. Health care operations are defined to include any services provide by or on behalf of a health plan or provider for the purpose of carrying out the management function or implementing the terms of a contract for benefits. In other words, an individual can be required to "agree" to disclosures for any management functions without restriction. Health care operations include (but presumably are not limited to): quality assurance activities and outcomes assessments; reviewing competency of health care professionals; accreditation, licensing, or credentialing activities; analysis of health plan claims or health care records data; evaluating health plan and provider performance; utilization review and precertification; underwriting; and auditing. The long list of permissible disclosures uses terms that are mostly undefined and could include virtually any type of use or disclosure that an employer, plan, or provider might want to make to satisfy its own institutional needs. For example, a disclosure for outcomes assessment could allow the entire medical record of an employee or an employee's family to be disclosed to the employer without notice, restriction or limitation. Similarly, disclosures to employers could fall under evaluating plan and provider performance. An employer might even disclose patient information to an employee's supervisor by claiming that it wants to obtain the supervisor's opinion on the performance of the employee's provider. Pharmacy Disclosures - Recent press stories highlighted how some pharmacies were making disclosures of patient information without consent for marketing purposes. It appears that the Jeffords bill wants to make it impossible for a provider to use the Section 202 authorization procedure to collect patient authorization for this purpose. Section 202(f) provides that authorization may not authorize disclosures "with the intent to sell, transfer, or use protected health information for commercial advantage." But this language may not provide adequate protection for patients. First, the language of section 202(f) limits disclosure and not use. The Jeffords bill is not clear on whether a distinction between internal use and external disclosure is meaningful. Assuming that it is a real difference, a drug manufacturer that owned a pharmacy could obtain the information because it is still within the same company. Another way to accomplish the same purpose might be for the manufacturer or the third party company to become an agent of the health plan. Then the disclosure might not be restricted because it is an internal use. Second, the term "commercial advantage" is not defined. Regardless, it provides no real limitation since any disclosure for disease system management could be justified -- rightly or wrongly -- as a treatment disclosure benefitting the patient or as part of a management function. As long as there is another intent for the disclosure, the restriction on disclosures for commercial advantage might not apply. Third, given the complex relationships between health care institutions, a disclosure of patient records might involve no overt payment or identifiable commercial advantage, but a pharmaceutical manufacturer could provide hidden discounts or benefits to cooperating plans or providers. The limitation in Section 202(f) offers little assurance that patient data will not be widely circulated to marketers or used for marketing purposes by a provider, plan or employer. If a pretext is found for including the disclosure in the authorization form that must be signed, then the disclosure with be "authorized." Revocation - Section 202(c)(2) discusses the revocation of an authorization given to a health plan. It is not clear whether a patient can revoke an authorization for disclosures for health care operations. Nothing in this section appears to restrict a patient's ability to revoke. A careful patient required to sign an authorization form might immediately revoke it. Whether this would permit a health plan to terminate coverage is not clear. However, other revocation language suggests that revocation of the authority is not an allowable result. When an individual cancels or fails to renew enrollment in the plan, the authorization is deemed to be revoked, except as may be necessary to complete health care operations and payment requirements related to the individual's period of enrollment. This suggests that the intent of the bill is that an affirmative revocation might not be able to cover health plan operation disclosures. It is not clear. Still, the revocation provision has several different consequences for both patient and health plans. First, when a patient switches a health plan, any existing authorization for treatment disclosures is revoked. So when an individual moves to another plan and another doctor, the previous authorization that would have permitted transfer of treatment records is no longer valid. New paperwork is required for the treatment disclosure. Second, revocation-by-cancellation places health plans in a precarious position. Suppose that a health plan want to use the record of a former enrollee in auditing, licensing, outcomes assessment, or for other health care operations purposes. Records of current enrollees (active revocation aside) could be used because of the signed authorization. But for former enrollees, use is permitted only "as may be necessary to complete health care operations." Each former enrollee's record would have to be identified, and a determination made that the record is "necessary" for the proposed use. Further, the term "complete" suggests that the exception to revocation is limited. Thus, it would be hard for a health plan to argue that a two, three, or ten year old patient record is needed to "complete" an outcomes assessment. Each patient could argue that any health care operation could be accomplished just as well without his or her individual record. The result is that health plans have a problem if they want to use records of former enrollees for operational purposes other than payment. They could easily be sued by patients who object that the uses no longer fall under the revoked authorization even with the statutory limitation. Because the disclosure authority for all health care operations is based SOLELY on each patient's authorization, that authority can and will expire. The revocation provision could also affect treatment. A treatment authorization may cover the treatment of patients other than the record subject. A physician treating a patient may look at records of other patients with similar conditions to learn what treatments were effective. Some other proposals would allow this type disclosure for treatment of other patients unless the subject of a record has objected. Once the authorization is revoked by cancellation of the health plan, the disclosure of a health record for treatment of others would no longer be permitted. Coerced consent does nothing to protect the privacy rights of patients. As proposed in S.1921, it also places health plans and employers at risk if they use the records of former enrollees. Conclusion - Not all of the disclosures that a patient would be forced to consent to under the S.1921 coerced consent language are necessarily objectionable. Many other proposals authorize similar disclosures. What is objectionable is the legal requirement that patients MUST sign consent forms authorizing disclosure. A patient who seeks to modify a mandatory authorization form or to question its content runs the risk of having insurance coverage terminated or being denied treatment. Section 202 of the Jeffords bill provides employers, health plans, and providers with nearly unlimited ability to use and disclose patient records as they see fit. As a result, it does little to improve privacy protections for individuals. Patients will be forced to sign away their possible privacy interests. The coerced consent model offers the appearance of patient privacy while really only protecting the interests of those who seek to exploit patient data in nearly any way that they see fit. Other proposals define uses and disclosures in statute. By relying on a statute for definitions, there will be an objective, external standard to regulate patient records. Under the coerced consent model, the employers, plans, and providers are able to make choices about how records are used and disclosed, without regard for patient need or statutory limitations. They can force patients to agree and make it difficult or impossible to for patients to challenge the authorization forms or to hold anyone accountable for uses and disclosures. The fundamental issue is not whether there should be limits on the use of health records. Everyone agrees that there should be. The real issue is who sets those limits. S.1921 allows health plans, employers, and providers to define how records can be used without any participation by patients or external controls. A better answer is to establish limits in legislation so that privacy policy is made by the Congress and so that patients have a greater say in nonessential uses. Coerced consent abdicates the responsibility of Congress to establish protections for patient privacy. S.1921 turns the responsibility over to health plans, employers, and providers. This is a fundamental flaw in approach, and it will not further patient privacy interests at all. In some ways, it is even a step back from the current rules that afford few protections to patients. Audit Trails - Suppose that health care information is disclosed to an employer and shared by the employer with an employee's supervisor. How can an employee find out that this has occurred? Section 112 requires the maintenance of audit trails. But the requirement only applies to EXTERNAL disclosures. In the workplace, there is no way to learn if records have been seen by any person who works for the entity maintaining the record. In a hospital setting, this mean that if a celebrity is admitted, the hospital need not keep track of any hospital employee who looks at that celebrity's record. If the record then becomes public, the celebrity will have no way to document who saw the record. Law Enforcement - Those who follow health privacy issues will recall that the proposal from the Secretary of Health and Human Services was heavily criticized by some members of Congress and in the press. The objection was that the proposal would allow law enforcement access to and use of patient records without any change from current practice. The Jeffords bill has some features that represent a marginal improvement over the Secretary's proposal. Nevertheless, the bill fails to meaningfully restrict law enforcement access and use and adds a new element that manages to produce a result even worse that the Secretary's proposal. Section 210 permits disclosures for law enforcement purposes. Disclosures pursuant to subpoenas and warrants require probable cause to believe that the information sought is relevant to a law enforcement inquiry. But Section 210(a)(3) allows disclosures in response to "a request otherwise authorized by State or Federal law." This has virtually no meaning. Law enforcement agencies will argue that they are authorized to request any health record under their general investigative authority. A law enforcement officer may claim that he or she is entitled to enter any hospital and ask for any patient record. Section 210(a)(3) authorizes the hospital to make the disclosure. No process is required. There is no probable cause requirement, no new standard, no new procedure, or no notice to the patient. Section 210(f) includes language excluding from evidence any information obtained unlawfully. This is, for the most part, present law. However, because the bill makes it so easy to obtain information without any standards or procedures under Section 210(a)(3), the exclusion has little effect. Further, it does little to protect patients. Consider a patient whose physician is the target of a fraud investigation. The patient's record is lawfully obtained by the law enforcement agency. The record is not excludable under the Jeffords exclusionary rule. Anything that a patient tells a physician can be used against the patient. The exclusionary rule affords no real protection to any physician-patient communication. Because federal law enforcement agencies have authority to obtain EVERY health record in the country, every revelation by a patient to a doctor may be accessed and used against the patient in all circumstances. The worst new law enforcement feature of the Jeffords bill is found in Section 215. Law enforcement officers who violate the law would not be personally liable unless the violation was a result of intentional conduct committed with the intent to sell, transfer, or use information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. A law enforcement official who illegally and negligently disclosed health care records would not be liable. An investigator who exposed millions of health records to public view by negligently leaving the records in a public file on the Internet would not be liable to anyone. No other person who obtains health information under the bill would be immune from responsibility for their conduct. ########################## - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: [Fwd: IP: NY: Pour It On] (fwd) Date: 11 Apr 1998 16:14:22 PST On Apr 11, JVS wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "Lock Up Your Safety" Bill Hits Grassroots Roadblock Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org New York State Legislative Alert - Time to Double Down! April 11, 1998 Your pressure has thrown the anti-gunners for a tumble. They were going to pass A 651-F this past Monday. It would be wise to target upstate Democrats in the New York Assembly as they may be more sensitive to grassroots pressure than some had previously thought. Reports indicate that A 651-F, the "Lock Up Your Safety", bill by Assemblyman Weisenberg, has lost three co-sponsors: Ravitz (D-73, New York Co.) , Seminario (D-38, Queens), and Townsend (R-115, Oneida). A 651-F is clearly intended to make it difficult, if not impossible, for honest citizens to defend themselves, their families and their homes from violent intruders. The vote could come anytime. Please continue to contact your Assemblyman. Do it repeatedly because as soon as they think the pressure is off, they'll try again. Thanks to Jacob J. Rieper [ 73377.1220@compuserve.com (NY RKBA) http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1976/lrn.htm ] for the following analysis and update: "The Assembly is feeling a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure on bill A 651F. This bill redefines a loaded firearm to include possession of a shotgun or rifle and possession of the ammunition. The gun doesn't have to be loaded to be considered a loaded firearm. This bill would add 2 new sections to the penal law: "LOADED RIFLE MEANS ANY RIFLE LOADED WITH AMMUNITION OR ANY RIFLE WHICH IS POSSESSED BY ONE WHO, AT THE SAME TIME, POSSESSES A QUANTITY OF AMMUNITION WHICH MAY BE USED TO DISCHARGE SUCH RIFLE." and "LOADED SHOTGUN MEANS ANY SHOTGUN LOADED WITH AMMUNITION OR ANY SHOTGUN WHICH IS POSSESSED BY ONE WHO, AT THE SAME TIME, POSSESSES A QUANTITY OF AMMUNITION WHICH MAY BE USED TO DISCHARGE SUCH SHOTGUN." "What this means is if you put your empty gun in your car to go hunting or trap shooting and you have ammunition in the car with you then the gun is considered loaded!" Thanks also to Dave Warshaw, Duchess County S.C.O.P.E., Tim Callery, Legislative Director S.C.O.P.E. and Mark Truscott for helping us to help you. To get a roster of Assemblymen and the pre-written message opposing A 651-F, visit the GOA website or e-mail a request. Any ?s Call GOA / Guns Save Lives *********************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your state of residence in either the subject line or the body. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: [Fwd: [RightNow] Press Release: 1997 NTU Ratings] (fwd) Date: 11 Apr 1998 16:13:22 PST Following the money..... On Apr 11, Donald Walker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] For Release April 9, 1998 For Further Information, Contact: Pete Sepp (703) 683-5700 Pro-Taxpayer Ratings in U.S. House Continue To Slide, Non-Partisan Study = of 171 Votes Shows (Washington, DC) =96 Pro-taxpayer scores last year in the U.S. House of Representatives continued their decline from record-setting levels two years ago, while Senate scores showed only a minuscule improvement, according to a comprehensive study released today by the 300,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU). =93In 1997, many members of Congress partied hearty with our tax dollars,= =94 said NTU President John Berthoud. =93The trouble is, taxpayers are the on= es left with the fiscal hangover.=94 In 1997, the average Taxpayer Score in the House of Representatives was 4= 3 percent, down from 1996=92s mean of 54 percent. Averages actually rose fo= r the Senate, from 52 percent in 1996 to 53 percent in 1997. The high point for averages over the Rating's 25-year history came in 1995, when typical scores reached 58 percent in the House and 57 percent in the Senate. The record low of 27 percent and 28 percent for the House and Senate, respectively, occurred in 1988. Party averages have also taken an interesting turn since the Republican Party took control of both Houses of Congress. In the three-year period from 1995 to 1997, the average House Democrat's score remained consistent= ly low =96 from 28% in 1995 to 29% in 1997. House Republican averages, howev= er, fell dramatically over that same period, from 83% to 56%. Senate party averages for Republicans declined less, from 86% to 75%. Even though Democrat averages in the senior chamber rose three points -- from 23% to 26% -- they remained well below the =93F=94 grade cut-off score of 33%. =93Although some of the Republicans have drifted lower, most Democrats in Congress continue to earn =93D=94 and =93F=94 grades from taxpayers,=94 B= erthoud observed. There were a total of 183 =93Big Spenders=94 in the House and S= enate, all but one of whom (Sanders, I-VT) were Democrats. =93Big Spenders=94 re= ceive the grade of =93F.=94 However, in this Rating, more than 80 Republicans w= ound up with =93C+=94, =93C=94, =93C-=93 or =93D=94 grades. On the top of the = scale, just 70 Republicans earned =93A=94s, and hence received the coveted =93Taxpayers=92= Friend=94 Award. In 1995, 121 lawmakers were named =93Taxpayers=92 Friends=94 for t= heir outstanding voting records. Berthoud attributed some of the decline in Republican scores and grades t= o the fact that the two parties narrowed much of their policy differences b= y passing the 1997 Balanced Budget And Taxpayer Relief Acts: =93Last year Congress reached what was advertised as a =93consensus=94 on lowering tax= es and erasing the deficit. Unfortunately, the =93consensus=94 ended up giving taxpayers one penny in relief on every dollar they send to Washington, an= d the economy deserved more credit for balancing the budget than politician= s did. It's therefore no wonder that our scores reflected an overall declin= e.=94 The top scorers in the House and Senate, respectively, were Ed Royce (R-C= A) with an 85% and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) with an 87%. At the bottom of the heap in the House and Senate, respectively, were Alan Mollohan (D-WV) with a 14% and Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) with a 6%. =93The drumbeat of 1995=92s fiscal revolution in Congress was barely audi= ble in 1997,=94 Berthoud concluded. =93The Clinton Administration's previous vet= oes and constant push for more spending have taken a toll.=94 The NTU Rating, which includes every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy, assigns a =93Taxpayer Score=94 to each member of Congress that indicates his or her commitment to reducing federal taxes, spending, and debt. For 1997, a total of 171 House and 138 Senate Votes were selected. National Taxpayers Union is a non-profit, non-partisan citizen organizati= on with 300,000 members who are dedicated to lower taxes, less wasteful spending, taxpayer rights, and accountable government at all levels. The 1997 Rating is available via fax or on-line at www.ntu.org. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE a= nd 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 a= nd on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #80 (fwd) Date: 12 Apr 1998 13:53:50 PST On Apr 12, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia April 12, 1998 #80 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html POLITICAL POLLS AND DONATIONS Anyone notice that they are conducting=20 government by polls nowadays? Yet, we voters out here in=20 fly-over country never seem to get polled. Nor do most of=20 us know anyone who has ever been polled. And, what is=20 government by opinion poll anyway, if not government by a=20 smaller version of mob rule. Actually, pollsters can make a poll come out=20 any way they wish. And they do. Regularly. There's a=20 lot more to it than just asking questions. Once the=20 pollster knows the demographics of the people to be=20 called, the desired answers can be obtained by tailoring=20 the questions properly. That's why, when we see a "poll"=20 on the Internet, where all Americans can reply and the=20 demographics are not a factor, the results are usually=20 significantly different than polls announced by the press. These Internet "polls" are not reported by the=20 national media because they do not fit in with the=20 national media's agenda. Were honest polls related to the=20 American public, some in government would not be=20 intimidated into passing socialist laws. "Clinton is helping his party [raise campaign=20 funds] more than the Republican national leaders are=20 helping theirs," the Pew Research Center for the People &=20 the Press reported last week. And, accordingly, the Pew=20 poll was related to the American public with glee by the=20 leftist major media. On April 3 [missed by two days] the Associated=20 Press reported: "President Clinton's lofty performance=20 rating accounts for some of his party's new-found support=20 and is brightening election prospects for the Democrats in=20 upcoming congressional elections, a poll suggests." So, when the national media tries to tell us=20 that Clinton's problems are actually helping fundraising=20 for the Democratic Party, that brings to mind a few=20 interesting questions. For instance: Is the whole=20 country corrupt now? I mean, are we actually rewarding=20 corruption in government with even more campaign donations? =20 Or, perhaps because the Democratic Party was able to take=20 those millions of illegally laundered campaigns donations=20 with impunity the last time, they now feel confident that=20 they can get away with it anytime. Anyone studying our history soon realizes=20 that the Democratic Party is directly responsible for most=20 of the problems the average citizen has with government=20 today. The FDR administration gave us all those=20 oppressive (and unconstitutional) federal regulatory=20 agencies. The Johnson administration gave us the so=20 called "Great Society," which ruined our major cities and=20 created a huge American underclass. Meanwhile, a=20 Democratic controlled Congress gave us a civil rights=20 program that turned Black against White and women against=20 men. Now it seems as though they're working on turning=20 children against parents too. The spin-offs of the new Socialist-Democratic=20 Party brought us a host of silly environmental laws,=20 pitted the Army (corps of engineers) against the American=20 public, allowed animals and fish to become more important=20 under American law than the welfare of humans, and used=20 the heavy hand of the central government to completely=20 regulate everything in our lives from womb to tomb. And,=20 to pay for all that, the Democrats placed stiff taxes on=20 everything they could think of. So, who could possibly benefit from donating=20 to the Democratic Party? Well, the trial lawyers made=20 more than a billion dollars with the help of the Clinton=20 administration. The communist Chinese made out like the=20 bandits they are, too. Ditto for Mexico. Indonesia, and=20 a host of other Asian countries will soon be spending=20 billions of our hard earned tax dollars. So will Israel=20 and Egypt. And, kids out in the jungles of Africa will=20 soon be cluttering the Internet instead of studying, paid=20 for by tax dollars taken from hard working factory workers=20 and small business owners in the United States. Probably, it must be the constituency and=20 supporters of the above named groups who are donating to=20 the Democratic Party this year. Because, for any average=20 American citizen to do so, they would have to be either an=20 avowed socialist or truly out of their cotton-picken minds. Early on as President, Bill Clinton freely told=20 America exactly how he felt about our Constitution and the=20 American rule of law. For instance, on the March 22, 1994=20 MTV program 'Enough is Enough,' Clinton brazenly said: =20 "When we got organized as a country we wrote a fairly=20 radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving=20 a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans . . .=20 and so a lot of people say there's too much personal=20 freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have=20 to move to limit it. That's what we did in the=20 announcement I made last weekend on the public housing=20 projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and=20 more things like that to try to make people safer in their=20 communities." Even before that, on March 11, 1993, Clinton=20 told USA Today, "We can't be so fixated on our desire to=20 preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." No matter,=20 evidently, that his oath of office requires exactly=20 that. . . . And so it goes with the Democratic Party. As=20 a political party, they have developed into a group that=20 is diametrically opposed to nearly every single thing=20 supported by our Founding Fathers. THE GUN NUTS STRIKE -- AGAIN The very first sentence of Article I, Section 1=20 in our United States Constitution clearly states: "All=20 legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a=20 Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a=20 Senate and a House of Representatives." Anyone not=20 understanding English well enough to understand the exact=20 meaning of those words is respectfully referred to the=20 Federalist Papers and numerous U.S. Supreme Court opinions=20 for clarification. In the text of the Federalist papers, and the=20 opinions of the Supreme Court, one will quickly notice=20 that Congress is the branch of government charged with=20 making all law. Because Congress does not wish to be=20 bothered, and hence delegates much of its legislative=20 authority to the administrative branch, is immaterial. =20 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, (most recently in New=20 York and Printz) Congress may not delegate any of its=20 legislative authority because that would upset the balance=20 of power between the three branches of government (and the=20 States). So, simply put, under our Constitution, the=20 administration has no authority to make law. That=20 includes the President. Because, if Congress continues to=20 allow the administrative branch to make law ad lib, what=20 the hell do we need a Congress for? We can just have a=20 four year elected dictatorship (which we almost have). On April 6, the White House announced: =20 "Today, in response to a previously issued memorandum, the=20 President announced that the Treasury Department has=20 concluded that more than 50 kinds of modified assault=20 weapons are generally not importable because they accept=20 large capacity military magazines. Up to 1.5 million=20 rifles whose importation had been temporarily suspended=20 may be affected by this decision." . . . "The more than 50 models of firearms affected=20 by today's decision are modified versions of military=20 assault weapons that were banned by the Bush=20 Administration in 1989, or by the Assault Weapons Ban of=20 1994. Most of these models are based on the AK 47 assault=20 rifle, but some are variants of the Uzi, FN-FAL, HK 91 and=20 93, and SIG SG550." Find more information on this at: =20 http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/assault_rifles/index.htm =20 Herein, we see two violations of the Constitution. =20 First, the President has no power to make law. Second,=20 the law is retroactive, and no branch of government has=20 the authority to pass an ex post facto law. The American people have both the right and=20 the duty to keep personal arms equal to those light arms=20 used by any police department or military force in the=20 world. We also have the right and the duty to become=20 proficient in the use of these personal arms for the=20 protection of self, family, home, State and nation. Because, as Thomas Jefferson admonished: "The=20 strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep=20 and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves=20 against tyranny in government." Recent reports indicate that at least a dozen=20 foreign governments are demanding that the American public=20 be disarmed. Furthermore, there are even suggestions=20 within some crazy factions at the United Nations that=20 foreign military forces enter the United States and disarm=20 the American people by force. Admittedly, today these are=20 classed as lunatic factions within the UN. But, based on=20 previous actions of the UN, things that are originally=20 called crackpot ideas have a strange habit of later=20 becoming treaty. It is the considered opinion of many people=20 out here in the foothills of Appalachia that the entering=20 of armed foreign troops into our country to act as police=20 would be recognized as an act of war against the American=20 people. And it is, incidentally, because so many millions=20 of American people are proficient with their personal arms=20 that the UN fears even considering any such action at this=20 time. Apparently, though, the Clinton administration is=20 attempting to aide the lunatic faction within the UN by=20 removing some of our protection. Also, as R.J. Rummel, Professor (Emeritus)=20 of Political Science at the University of Hawaii reports: =20 "Nearly 170 million people have been murdered by=20 governments in this century; over four-times the number=20 killed in combat in all the international and domestic=20 wars." A breakdown of that data can be found at: =20 http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/, We might also add that most of these 170 million=20 people were easily slaughtered by their government because=20 they were unarmed. Furthermore, many millions of these=20 killings happened while the murdering government was a=20 member of the United Nations. Congress must take quick and decisive action=20 to countermand the administration's action. Our job is to=20 insure that they do. There is only a window of a few=20 weeks available for Congress to act. So, tell them your=20 opinion quickly. GUNS, POLITICIANS AND AIRCRAFT Way back when, in the days when most=20 commercial aircraft had propellers and a ride that would=20 usually vibrate your dinner off of the tray if you weren't=20 careful, it was very common for us to board a plane=20 armed. In those days, many of us carried a 357 magnum=20 which, because of its size, I always referred to as a=20 "semi" canceled weapon. Nothing was ever said about guns=20 on aircraft until some idiot calling himself D.B. Cooper=20 managed to successfully hijack one. Just after a couple Cooper copycats tried=20 something similar, the frequent flyers of the Congressional=20 class got interested. Because, if a plane they were on was=20 hijacked, they could actually be late for a fund-raiser=20 luncheon, a lobbyist funded vacation, or something. Can't=20 have that. So suddenly, most Americans could no longer=20 carry a gun on a commercial aircraft. Gun-toting on=20 busses and trains was fine, because Members of Congress=20 do not normally use them. Packing heat on commercial=20 aircraft became verboten. Ditto for bombs. No one knows of any=20 American (except police officers) ever actually trying to=20 board a commercial aircraft carrying a bomb. But, heck,=20 better to be safe than sorry said the frequent flyers in=20 the Congressional class. So, nowadays even the baggage=20 that is checked is checked. Many airports, like the Cincinnati and Northern=20 Kentucky Airport, carry that trend one step further. They=20 have money police there too. That is, if any of the=20 airport employees see an aircraft passenger or airport=20 visitor with a roll of cash, they call the special airport=20 cops and the nice officers relieve that person of the=20 burden of carrying so much cash. Then, they share part of=20 the illicit cash with the airport employee who fingered=20 the beleaguered person. It's all quite legal, too -- so they try to say. =20 You see, they're looking for illegal drugs. And money,=20 of course, may be used to purchase illegal drugs someday. =20 So, they take the cash. The current drug cops at the=20 Cincinnati Airport must really be doing a great job, too. =20 They haven't found a lot of drugs, but they have relieved=20 a whole lot of people of large stashes of personal cash. Apparently, the Cincinnati airport cops are not=20 very good at finding guns, though. Kentucky State Rep.=20 Pete Worthington (D-Ewing) tested that last week. =20 Worthington caught a flight to the Dallas-Fort Worth=20 Airport with a .22-caliber handgun in his carry-on baggage. =20 He made it to Dallas just fine. But when he tried to come=20 back they noticed the gun. And not knowing that he was=20 a member of the protected class, they stopped him. Worthington says he carries that handgun=20 (without a permit) with him everywhere, and just "forgot"=20 it was in the bag. Also, he didn't like being stopped and=20 bothered. So, he called his buddy Kentucky House Speaker=20 Jody Richards. Jody Richards, also a Democrat, then=20 called his counterpart in Texas. The good old boy system=20 worked, and Worthington came home. As the story goes, the Kentucky prosecutor=20 responsible for charging Worthington (the Cincinnati=20 Airport is in Kentucky) said he can not charge Worthington=20 cause no one saw him with a gun here -- no matter that=20 Worthington admits he had it with him while boarding the=20 aircraft. And, of course, the Texas prosecutor is not=20 interested in pressing charges, either. Now . . . we do not really believe that=20 Worthington, or anyone else for that matter, should be=20 prosecuted for something as silly as taking a little=20 handgun on a commercial aircraft. However, because he is=20 a legislator -- a lawmaker -- and that is the law, we feel=20 that the State House should censure him. And, as part of=20 his punishment, he should be required to spend a year=20 working to have many of these stupid laws repealed. Maybe=20 he could do something to stop that crew with badges and=20 guns from stealing people's money, too. Meanwhile, let this be just another example=20 that there is no "equal justice" under the law. Congress=20 gave us a class system. There's the elected ones and=20 their friends, the bureaucrats, and then the normal=20 citizens. And as we are seeing -- over and over again,=20 and in all levels of government from the White House on=20 down -- only the citizens are required to obey all laws. Yes, we still have something referred to as the=20 "Rule of Law." It's just that the Lords and Ladies of the=20 Hill rearranged it to fit their own personal needs more=20 adequately. EQUAL JUSTICE Vs. NATIONAL SECURITY We've learned a lot about the law from the=20 Clinton administration. Gore's "no controlling legal=20 authority" teaches us that a law may not be enforced until=20 there is a court opinion on it. So, all new laws must be=20 moot because they cannot get to court if they are not=20 enforced. Actually, we kind of like that concept, what=20 with all the very oppressive laws lately. And this Justice Department has got to be=20 the crowning jewel of the Rule of Law. Reno's Just-Us=20 Department recently informed us that those accused of=20 major felonies now have the option of investigating=20 themselves. No matter, either, if it was a huge ongoing=20 criminal enterprise spanning over a decade. The=20 perpetrators can conduct the investigation. And, so they=20 did. Remember Gary Webb and his recently=20 discredited series of articles in the San Jose Mercury=20 News? He outlined what many of us have believed for years: =20 Agents of the federal government -- the very same federal=20 government out there arresting Americans for selling the=20 stuff -- are among the largest illegal drug importers in=20 this country. Reporter Gary Webb weaved a tale describing=20 how federal officials regularly allowed a dubious=20 "national security" program top priority over "citizen=20 security." He told a story of an officially sanctioned=20 crime -- a crime that was (is?) in progress for many years. =20 This is a crime against society that has devastated=20 hundreds of American neighborhoods and tens of thousands=20 of American citizens, by the introduction of tons of cheap=20 cocaine. The San Jose Mercury News series described=20 part of how CIA agents encouraged, used and protected=20 drug kingpins for years on end. It told how the DEA, FBI,=20 IRS, and even federal prosecutors and judges, aided and=20 abetted the CIA and their network of protected drug=20 runners in flooding American neighborhoods with cheap=20 cocaine. And, as those of us who studied the background=20 material provided know, Webb backed up his accusations=20 rather well. The lesson, clearly understood by anyone=20 reading that series, is that this "national security"=20 farce touted by agents of the United States government=20 clearly has absolutely no relation to the everyday=20 security of the citizens of the United States. Rather, it=20 functioned to the detriment of millions of American=20 citizens. Webb showed that federal judges aided=20 federal prosecutors in releasing federally "protected"=20 drug runners. The FBI, DEA, and even Customs, helped the=20 CIA insure that they would profit from selling illegal=20 drugs in American neighborhoods. It almost appears as if=20 members of all these federal agencies joined together to=20 keep the competition down so the "protected" drug sellers=20 would have a ready market. Of course, that was not a new story. The=20 Wall Street Journal reported that CIA operatives were=20 importing cocaine into the United States as far back as=20 1987. And at least fourteen other major publications ran=20 similarly enlightening articles since then. The Senate=20 even held a hearing on the subject in 1986. Back then, Senator Kerry's report stated: "The=20 Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included: =20 Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals=20 associated with the Contra movement." And hence, the CIA. =20 Yet, no action was ever taken to stop the flow of illegal=20 drugs into our neighborhoods. Now, the CIA and Justice Department says=20 none of it was true. And the CIA's investigation of=20 itself proved that there was no truth to the accusations. =20 Anyone believe that? Can anyone honestly say they=20 expected anything else from them? The problem is,=20 government (again) lied. We know that because, this=20 time, we have information from a 25 year drug enforcement=20 insider and yet another report to a Congressional=20 committee. Read on: We should note that, in nearly every country=20 of the world, the major drug kingpins are readily=20 identifiable. Not in the United States, though. Here,=20 any time investigators get too close to the top drug=20 kingpins, they run into a very large wall. National=20 Security, it's called. Over the last decade or so, a number of=20 House committees investigating illegal drug running gave=20 up in frustration because the Department of Justice=20 withheld all pertinent information and fought every=20 committee investigation tooth and nail. So too with the=20 Kerry Senate Committee. The Kerry Senate Committee=20 actually identified some of the CIA connections and named=20 a few names. Then suddenly, evidently, Kerry was told to=20 go sit down and shut up about things that do not concern=20 him. He did, and the Department of Justice dropped the=20 whole deal. Nothing was done. As always, everything was=20 covered up under the guise of national security. Now comes an op-ed piece in last week's=20 "Washington Weekly" by Michael Levine, now retired, but a=20 25 year veteran of federal drug enforcement. And now we=20 learn that there is, in fact, and has been for at least 15=20 years, a secret deal between the CIA and the Justice=20 Department allowing tons of illegal drugs to enter the=20 United States with impunity. So, again we learn a serious lesson in=20 American law. The law does not apply to all people=20 equally. Some government employees may, with impunity,=20 import as much illegal drugs for distribution within the=20 United States as they wish. They may also personally=20 profit from this endeavor. Government will then arrest=20 and imprison American citizens who are small time dealers=20 and users of these very same illegal drugs. National Security, it's called. How's that for=20 equality under the law? CIA ADMITS TO DEAL WITH DOJ TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE An Op-Ed by Michael Levine, with Laura Kavanau=20 Levine, from the April 6 edition of "The Washington=20 Weekly." As an ex-DEA agent I found the complete=20 lack of coverage by mainstream media of what I saw during=20 last month's congressional hearings into CIA Drug=20 Trafficking both depressing and frightening. I sat gape-mouthed as I heard the CIA Inspector=20 General testify that there has existed a secret agreement=20 between CIA and the Justice Department, wherein "during=20 the years 1982 to 1995, CIA did not have to report the=20 drug trafficking by its assets to the Justice Department." To a trained DEA agent this literally means=20 that the CIA had been granted a license to obstruct=20 justice in our so-called war on drugs; a license that=20 lasted, so the CIA claims, from 1982 to 1995, a time=20 during which Americans paid almost $150 billion in taxes=20 to "fight" drugs. Of course the evidence indicates that=20 they did not stop obstructing justice in 1995 either, but=20 that I suppose is going to be another congressional=20 hearing. As far as the current hearings go, this Catch 22=20 "revelation" means that all the present hearings are for=20 nothing; that if they are caught violating the drug laws=20 they have been given "secret" license to do so by our=20 Justice Department. This might also explain Janet Reno's=20 recent and unprecedented move in blocking the release of=20 a Justice Department investigation into CIA drug=20 trafficking. God, with friends like these, who needs enemies? It is now clear that this agreement began with=20 the events described in THE BIG WHITE LIE; that the top=20 drug traffickers in Bolivia, then supplying virtually all=20 the world's cocaine (including Sonia Atala) were CIA=20 assets that had to be protected from our deep cover probe. Those watching the hearings cannot have=20 helped but notice the snickering on the part of Chairman=20 Porter Goss, an ex-CIA officer, as congresswoman Maxine=20 Waters spoke. Now here's the reason why: Sources of=20 mine, who speak to me from inside this veil of secrecy out=20 of conscience and because I am cheaper and more reliable=20 than a psychiatrist, have told me the following: 1. There is secret communication between CIA=20 and members of the Congressional staff indicating that the=20 whole hearing is just a smoke and mirror show so that the=20 American people -- particularly the Black community -- can=20 "blow off some steam" without doing any damage to CIA. =20 The CIA has been assured that nothing real will be done,=20 other than some embarrassing questions being asked. 2. That the hearings will result in the CIA=20 receiving an even larger budget than the current $26=20 billion that they admit to. One of the most distressing things for me=20 as a 25-year-veteran of this business to listen to was=20 when Congresswoman Waters said that the hearings were not=20 about CIA officers being indicted and going to jail. =20 "That is not going to happen," she said. Almost in the same breath she spoke of a=20 recent case in Miami wherein a Venezuelan National Guard=20 general was caught by Customs agents smuggling more than=20 a ton of cocaine into the US. Despite named CIA officers=20 being involved in the plot, as Congresswoman Waters=20 stated, the Justice Department will not tell her anything=20 about the case because of "secrecy laws." No wonder chairman Goss was snickering. She=20 could not have played more neatly into CIA hands than to=20 surrender before the battle was engaged. [Michael Levine is the author of "The Big=20 White Lie" and "Deep Cover" and is the host of THE=20 EXPERT WITNESS radio show WBAI, New York City, 99.5 FM,=20 Tuesdays, 7-8 pm] Published in the Apr. 6, 1998 issue of The=20 Washington Weekly. Copyright =A9 1998 The Washington Weekly=20 (http://www.federal.com). Reposting permitted with this=20 message intact. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Have you called your congresscritter yet? (fwd) Date: 12 Apr 1998 14:16:47 PST On Apr 12, Doug Spittler wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From another list; --------------------- >Executive powers raising questions > Clinton's order on gun restrictions meets bipartisan criticism > President Bill Clinton is receiving criticism on a bipartisan basis for his > use of executive powers. Congressmen on both sides of the gun issue > and from both political parties have united their efforts with gun rights > supporters to reverse a recent executive order banning certain guns from > import. WorldNetDaily 4/9/98 > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/980409.ex.clinton.gun_restrictions.op >posed.html > > > Clinton's latest gun grab > In the United States, they came first for the > Uzis, but I didn't speak up because I didn't own > an Uzi. Then they came for the AK-47s, and I > didn't speak up because I didn't own an AK-47. > Then they came for all the semiautomatic > weapons, and I didn't speak up because I didn't > own a semiautomatic weapon. Then they came > for the handguns, but I didn't speak up because > I owned a shotgun. Then they came for my gun, > and by that time no one was left to speak up. > WorldNetDaily 4/9/98 > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980409.btl.clinton.gun-grab.html > >Vinnie Moscaritolo >------------------ >http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ >DSS/DH: 3F903472C3AF622D5D918D9BD8B100090B3EF042 > >"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude >greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. >We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that >feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget >that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: President Clinton's executive order on gun imports (fwd) Date: 13 Apr 1998 08:37:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 09:33:20 -0500 >To:DUNN@HR.HOUSE.GOV, repwhite@mail.house.gov, >ASKLINDA@HR.HOUSE.GOV,GRNWA05@HR.HOUSE.GOV >From:handgnr@nwlink.com (Dave Workman) >Subject:President Clinton's executive order on gun imports >Cc:GEORGIA6@HR.HOUSE.GOV (Newt Gingrich) > >Hon. Jennifer Dunn, >Hon. Rick White, >Hon. Linda Smith, >Hon. George Nethercutt: > > I am writing to urge you all to join your colleague, Utah Rep. >Chris Cannon, and some 40 others in a planned action to nullify President >Clinton's recent "executive order" banning the import of several >foreign-made firearms. > > The firearms community is not simply alarmed at this move by the >President to capitalize on the Jonesboro, Ark. tragedy. The firearms >community is angry, and they are asking themselves why they should bother >sending back a Republican majority this fall if that majority - which has >enjoyed strong support from firearms owners since the sweeping >Congressional sea change in 1994 - turns a deaf ear and blind eye to its >concerns. > > As a spokesman for over 80,000 members of the National Rifle >Association here in Washington state (make that, 80,000 voters) I am >obliged to tell you that the members I represent are demanding swift, >decisive action when Congress returns April 22. They have had quite enough >vilification from the Clinton Administration, and far too much neglect for >their concerns from the Republican majority, of which you are all members. > > One would think that if the ACLU can fight for the First Amendment >rights of Nazis to parade through the streets of Skokie, Ill., than the >Republican majority that gun owners sent to Congress in 1994, and kept >there in 1996 - in response to Clinton's passage of the Brady Law, and the >semi-auto and high-capacity magazine bans - should be able to find the >courage to speak out and take action on behalf of the Second Amendment. > > There's been considerable discussion lately in the media that >Republicans may lose control of the House this fall. No more certain >guarantee of that would be for this nation's firearms owners to "sit this >one out" as they did in 1992 when they lost all confidence in President >George Bush because of his import ban order. > > I urge you to join your fellow congressional representatives and >do the right thing, rather than the "politically correct" thing. Regain >the spirit you showed in 1995, when the nation watched and waited to see >whether your party really would change the direction of government. > >Sincerely, >Dave Workman >Board member >National Rifle Association >P.O. Box 1638 >North Bend, WA 98045 > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Univ. of Texas site against world government Date: 13 Apr 1998 10:39:27 -0500 (CDT) http://www.engr.utexas.edu/cofe/governance ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =20 Foreward =20 When the Chair of Free Enterprise was originally endowed in 1976, the Board of Regents expressed its mandate to the Chair in explicit terms: =20 =20 =20 =93The teaching and research activities of this Chair shall include an examination of the relationships between business management, governmental affairs, social sciences, engineering, secondary education and the free enterprise system.=94=20 =20 =20 =20 Moreover, the Chair was directed to enhance the development of scholarly relationships between this academic program of The University and appropriate aspects of government, industry and other educational units.=20 =20 During the past two decades, the Chair has amplified its efforts to fulfill the Regents=92 mandate. Regulatory ratcheting by government agencies wielding enormous power in environmental matters has severely impacted private enterprise during the recent past. Unsubstantiated claims have been made about environmental degradation caused by =93industrialization=94 and =93free enterpri Such claims haunderscored t= he necessity of pursuing scholarly research to explain not only the reasons for an emergence of a series of =93globalenvironmental crises =94 -- global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain,endangered species and the like -- but also their putative relationship to a developing strategy for =93the rise of globa governance.=94 =20 This publication sets forth in factual detail a sequence of events indicating that latent geopolitical powers have been shaping an agenda for global governance which includes a coercive system of global taxation, supranational police powers, and the enforcement of stringent environmental standards designed to reverse if not coercively eliminate uncontrolled industrial development and its custodian, =93national sovereignty.=94 =20 Moreover, Third Wave Politics, as Alvin and Heidi Toffler tell us, has already begun to supplant Second Wave mass-industrial society. It is to be expected, they say, that =93Creating a New Civilization=94 inevitably entails deep conflicts as Second Wave brute-force economies symbolized by the assembly line become supplanted by Third Wave brain-force economies symbolized by the computer. In proposing their clairvoyant vision of the future, the Tofflers leave unexplored the vacuum into which the geopolitical powers behind global governance intend to insert themselves in implementing their plans to supersede the powers of sovereign nations. =20 This publication presents research conducted by Henry Lamb, Chairman of Sovereignty International Incorporated. It is an initial phase in the Chair=92s endeavor to elevate public understanding of imminent threats to our Constitutional liberties, as well as an erosion of the freedom for innovation embodied in a private enterprise system. =20 M. N. Maxey, Ph.D., Director =20 C. W. Murchison Sr. Chair of Free Enterprise =20 Winter 1997 =20 _________________________________________________________________ =20 12 February 1998 The University of Texas at Austin cofe@www.utexas.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: N.O.W. Gags "Roe" and "Doe" (fwd) Date: 13 Apr 1998 10:34:03 PST On Apr 13, Jo wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > >Dear Readers, >A perfect example of Media censorship. >The original plaintiffs of "Roe" v Wade and "Doe" v. Bolton are now pro-life, and >testifying in defense of the peaceful prolife protesters who are on trial under laws >originally intended to convict mafia gangsters. > Bet you haven't heard of this case, and bet you won't on "mainstream". >================================================================== > >Wednesday April 8, 9:57 am Eastern Time > >Company Press Release > >SOURCE: Pro-Life Action League > >Pro-Life Action League: N.O.W. Gags and Masks Roe and Doe at Rico Trial > >CHICAGO, April 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The following was issued today by the >Pro-Life Action League: > >Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano, the ``Roe'' and ``Doe'' of the landmark >1973 abortion cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, will testify >Wednesday and/or Thursday on behalf of Joseph M. Scheidler and the >Pro-Life Action League in Federal Court. The defendants in the NOW v. >Scheidler trial are under a remarkable gag order obtained by the >plaintiffs. Roe & Doe along with Scheidler will speak to the press at >1:15 p.m. Wednesday, April 8th, in the lobby of the Federal Court house >located at the Dirksen Federal Building, 219 South Dearborn, in >Chicago. > >McCorvey and Cano will testify about their witnessing and, in Cano's >case, participating in peaceful pro-life demonstrations in front of >abortion facilities. What they will not be able to reveal to the jury >is their identities as ``Roe'' and ``Doe.'' Claiming that it would be >``unfair'' for the jury to know that the two women, now pro-life >activists, were once the abortion movement's most revered icons, the >National Organization for Women and co-plaintiff abortion clinics have >secured a ruling requiring McCorvey's and Cano's past roles as >pro-abortion litigants to be kept secret in the courtroom. > >``I suppose if NOW could have superimposed a blue dot over the faces of >Norma and Sandra in the courtroom to keep anyone from possibly >recognizing them, they would have moved for that, too,'' said defendant >Joe Scheidler, director of the Pro-Life Action League. ``NOW's tactics >in this trial are veering from the Orwellian to the surreal.'' > >McCorvey will testify that the pro-life demonstrations she witnessed >while visiting a Los Angeles clinic and serving as a four-year staff >member at several Dallas abortion facilities were always peaceful and >non-violent. Cano will discuss her observations, and her own >participation in, peaceful ``rescue'' demonstrations at abortion >clinics in Atlanta. They both will speak to Mr. Scheidler's peaceful >quest in fighting abortion. > >``It's at least consistent that NOW and the abortionists want to hide >the identities of Miss McCorvey and Miss Cano,'' states Scheidler. >``When someone is inconvenient to them, be it a witness or a preborn >baby, they simply try to conceal the truth of who that person is.'' > >During these last five weeks of testimony in the trial, NOW has tried >to prove that pro-life activists exercising their First Amendment >rights had somehow formed a criminal ``enterprise'' and ``conspired'' >to perform ``extortionate'' acts to achieve an illegal goal. After >almost a month of NOW's smoke and mirrors, the air has begun to clear. > >``If NOW wants to stop terrorism, why don't they sue the terrorists?'' >asked Scheidler. ``They're coming after us because we're both >non-violent and effective. We're saving lives. To be pro-life is to >have a fundamental respect for human life and to reject violence. That >is why we reject the violence that is abortion. That is why we urge >women to choose life,'' said Scheidler, ``and why we urge abortionists >to quit their grisly trade.'' > >SOURCE: Pro-Life Action League [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Oklahoma Rally (fwd) Date: 13 Apr 1998 16:42:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- mlindste@clandjop.com, jeffs@gr.cns.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, Shiloh1@airmail.net, nox2128@montana.com ****************************** BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT ****************************** OKLAHOMA RALLY FOR WILL FOSTER ON THE STEPS OF THE CAPITOL 4/20/98, 4 p.m. Bills of Attainder and The War On Drugs In 1986 President Ronald Reagan declared the nation at war to fight the escalating use and sale of illegal drugs. When the first official operation of this "war" was to send U.S. policemen to Mexico where they helped murder a man, his wife and two children, Americans should have seen the horror of what was to come in this country. Instead, Americans let politicians legislate policies that have taken away the rights of citizens to exclusively own private property, and have caused serious encroachments on civil liberties, and created militarized police. There are over three-hundred different laws that allow government agents to take property, and suspend civil rights. Most Americans harbor the mistaken belief their civil rights are intact. They have bought into the government's dogma. In 1997 the Clinton Administration's draft of its National Drug Control Strategy policy statement says, "The War On Drugs is unwinnable, the term 'war' is unrealistic, and recommends that the government view drugs as a disease like cancer." This year in 1998 the Drug Czar's budget is 17.1 billion dollars. This does not count the state budgets and the cost of processing and housing all of the prisoners. In spite of the fact Congress is looking at different perspectives of the drug problem, treatment instead of punishment, it looks like the Czar's budget will go through. Both Republicans and Democrats swear to win the "War." In the same breath Newt Gingrich swears to rid Americans of the 'drug culture' but calls McCaffrey's plan "timid and defeatist." McCaffrey advocates closing the borders off even tighter. McCaffrey cites corruption of foreign governments as directly effecting his plan but his report makes no mention of the mass corruption in our government. A high possibility exists that his statistical information is not accurate. The "drug culture" is more underground than a 1930's speakeasy and not too free with information. Social fear is higher now than then. The "Czar" advocates a ten year plan which will only decrease drug use by 3%. His plan will not stop drugs. It will not stop the encroachment of your civil liberties and it will not protect you from crime. It will not stop the general public from believing the lies and propaganda McCaffrey's program will generate. McCaffrey expects to promote and escalate his "war" through the use of advertising by Partnership For A Drug Free America. This organization has two regular functions. They take donations, and they solicit media space. McCaffrey's plan calls for funding of the propagandized media spots, for which "Partnership" will solicit air time. The general public may hear little else about drugs but the "fear campaign" generated by the DEA and "Partnership." Americans do not realize much of the information they receive on drugs is propaganda. The effect is to generate social fear. So far it has been as effective as McCarthy Era horrors. The National Drug Control Strategy gives no credence to separate drugs. All illegal drugs are always lumped together. McCaffrey links marijuana to "meth." without giving truth about differences. What McCaffrey states as being cultural, is likely racial. He talks about targeting locals when what he means is crackdowns on places that are racially predominate. "Meth" and "Crack" are prone to attract users of different races. The racial implications of McCaffrey's plan is already seen in the racial imbalances in our prisons. McCaffrey's plan calls for the medical treatment of drug users to come under the control of the government. Congress is looking at treatment over punishment as a possible solution. Does McCaffrey's plan treat only those he can outlaw as criminals? McCaffrey talked about "altering the value systems of American youth." The use of force and the militarization of American police to enforce a "Prohibitionist State" has certainly had an influence on our youth so far. The government is building prisons for those not yet born on the basis of statistical predictions. McCaffrey's plan attacks the "drug culture" as a specific group. It specifically outlaws the segment of our society involved with drugs the same way Jim Crow laws outlawed Blacks. The bill of attainder clauses in the Constitution forbids any law that is directed at a specific, ascertainable group. (See U.S. v. Lovett, USC Art. 1, Cl 9) The "War On Drugs" promises extended militarization of our police forces. Not only does this approach to law enforcement encroach upon American civil liberties it expands the gigantic cost of making America a "Prohibitionist State." The "War On Drugs" is about much more than drugs. It effects every American. There will be no reasonable end to it unless most Americans realize the cost to them has been more than money. Republicans, Democrats and others who keep escalating McCaffrey's policies must realize they have made a crucial error. They have taken away American liberties they have had no right to remove. As an American do you want our representatives to support a national, and international program that includes lies, murder, and theft as justifiable to use in American justice? Bill Of Attainder Project http://www.isc- durant.com/tom/billofattainder P.O. Box 584, Colbert, OK 74733 tom@isc-durant.com (580) 965-4867 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Hearthside, April 14, Mobs Date: 14 Apr 1998 17:15:07 -0400 >From: "Hearthside Family Publications" <hearth@hancock.net> >To: "Our friends at Hearthside"hearth@hancock.net >Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:53:34 +0000 >X-Distribution: Moderate >Subject: Hearthside, April 14, Mobs >Reply-to: hearth@hancock.net >Priority: normal > > >Hearthside, April 14, Mobs > >"To return to the electoral college: it was devised as a safeguard >against popular excitement. It was supposed that he electors in their >December meeting would calmly discuss the merits of the ablest men in >the country and make an intelligent selection for the presidency. The >electors were to use their own judgment, and it was not necessary that >all the electors chosen in one state should vote for the same >candidate. The people on election day were not supposed to be voting >for a president but for the presidential electors. This theory was >never realized." (1) > >It was designed to protect us from ourselves. It was designed to keep >democracy out of the presidential elections. Why? > >"Where the security is no more than personal, there may be a good >monarch, but can be no good commonwealth." Harrington's Political >Aphorisms > >The idea was to protect interests, both of the individual and >corporate society. The genius of the founders was to have us elect our >Representatives directly (for our personal rights and interests), our >Senators by our State legislatures (for our State's rights and >interests), and our Executive by electors (for our corporate rights >and interests.) > >>From the start we ignored and were hidden from wisdom by the=20 >candidates, but righteousness and naivet=E9 protected us. When the=20 >ability to have the State's choose our Senators was taken away, it=20 >put the whole shebang in the hands of the mob. > >What is wrong with that? > >"Let us calmly and with truthfulness consider the history and the >nature of man, and we shall find the answer. We all acknowledge that >man is a frail being, subject to a thousand sinister influences; we >all acknowledge that wise men are infinitely rarer than unwise; yet >shall the aggregate of these individuals constitute a wise, just, >dispassionate body? Where is reason in this argument?" (2) > >"In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod >is for the back of him that is void of understanding." Proverbs 10:13 > >That is not a prescription, but a consequence... > >Dave and Helen Delany > >(1) _Civil Government in the United States_, by John Fiske; Houghton, >Mifflin, 1890 >(2) _Manual of Political Ethics_, vol. 1, by Francis Lieber; J. B. >Lippincott, 1874 >--- > Liberty Begins at Hearthside > >Copyright: Hearthside Family Publications > http://www.hancock.net/~freedom > * * * * * >><> To Subscribe (or unsubscribe) > Send request to hearth@hancock.net > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Release: Tax Day Waste Date: 15 Apr 1998 11:12:52 -0400 As if your tax day isn't bad enough without knowing where your money's going. Tom >Date: Tue, 14 Apr 98 14:03:02 PDT >From: announce@lp.org >Subject: Release: Tax Day Waste >Sender: announce-request@lp.org >Reply-To: announce@lp.org >To: announce@lp.org (Libertarian Party announcements) >X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.8 > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >=============================================== >NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY >2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 >Washington DC 20037 >=============================================== >For release: April 14, 1998 >=============================================== >For additional information: >George Getz, Press Secretary >(202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 >Internet: 76214.3676@CompuServe.com >=============================================== > > >Here are the top 10 ways politicians will waste >your money in 1998, Libertarians tell taxpayers > > WASHINGTON, DC -- The only thing more painful than sending your >money to the IRS, Libertarians say, is thinking about all the ways >politicians will squander it. > > "April 15 is the time to remind taxpayers of how recklessly >politicians plan to spend their hard-earned money," said Ron >Crickenberger, national director of America's most ardently anti-tax >party, the Libertarians. "To get an idea of where your money will go >this year, take a look at the Top 10 Most Outrageous Things Politicians >Voted to Spend Your Money On This Year . . ." > > (1) Themselves. "Politicians gave themselves a pay raise to >$136,672 a year -- without even taking a formal vote," Crickenberger >said. "This $3,072 Congressional pay heist gives new meaning to the >term Capitol offense." > > (2) Their taxpayer-funded Cadillacs. At least 100 House >Republicans and Democrats are leasing luxury cars, some at a cost of >over $1,000 a month. "If your 1040 forms are driving you crazy, stop >and think about all those Congressmen driving around in luxury -- at >your expense," Crickenberger said. > > (3) The IRS. Three weeks before hearings at which Republicans >and Democrats claimed to be "outraged" at how this rogue agency >"terrorizes innocent Americans and ruins their lives," Congress voted >to increase the IRS budget by $600 million. "But when the television >cameras were turned off, those IRS bullies went back to work -- and >they're the same people collecting your check on April 15." > > (4) Pot smokers. The government paid $50,000 to study the >habits of "habitual marijuana smokers" in an experiment at the >Bowman-Gray Medical School in Winston-Salem, NC. "Cheech and Chong, >Uncle Sam wants you!" Crickenberger said. "Squandering money like this >is the ultimate form of reefer madness." > > (5) New York's Metropolitan Opera. "The National Endowment for >the Arts is using your tax money to subsidize $125 tickets for the >bejeweled patrons who attend the Met -- proving that NEA bureaucrats >have mastered the art of picking taxpayers' pockets," Crickenberger >said. > > (6) Haircuts for Senators. "Taxpayers will be charged $180,000 >to subsidize a shop that pays barbers $62,000 a year and receptionists >$47,000 -- proving that politicians are more concerned about trimming >their hair than about trimming the cost of government," Crickenberger >said. > > (7) Lecturing teenagers not to have sex. As part of a program >to curb teen pregnancy, the GOP inserted $400 million into the Welfare >Reform Act to promote abstinence until marriage. "A Congress that can't >say no when it comes to wasting money thinks it can teach American >teenagers to say no when it comes to sex," Crickenberger said. > > (8) Paying medical schools not to train doctors. Concerned >about a doctor glut, Republicans rolled out a program last year that >could pay 1,025 medical schools billions not to train doctors. "No >wonder health care costs are going crazy," Crickenberger said. "How >about a subsidy for people who promise not to become politicians -- >since there's a glut of them, and they're making taxpayers sick!" > > (9) Deploying troops in 100 nations. The U.S. military bragged >that it had stationed American forces in more than half the nations on >the globe -- costing taxpayers billions of dollars. "That isn't a >national defense, it's a national offense," Crickenberger said. "It's >an offense against U.S. taxpayers, who are paying for a global case of >military mission creep." > > (10) The only good news: A $4 billion IRS computer that >doesn't work. The IRS admitted last year that it spent 11 years and $4 >billion developing a computer system that doesn't work, and an IRS >bureaucrat admitted that the agency lacks the "intellectual capacity to >do the job right." > > "In an odd way, this computer fiasco is good news -- it means >there's one less powerful, high-tech weapon for the IRS to use to >harass innocent Americans," Crickenberger said. "So it's harder for >politicians to get our money -- which they'll just waste on more silly >programs like these." > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBNTPIwNCSe1KnQG7RAQExVQP/dHXpREttnCjChKmO8t21a7Sa+WBwLS34 >grdkXHxnFrk+KHzGT2fJUMNYceqK/lAVLgjKM1nYwQsxkp7WVG/MSrqVkSrcAruL >ZMr8bVAITNoDOUldh6WVVqZdwgTp+2hlQ2t56WBX2BpJyvTiVtdiL79JhM1uspjO >zl3Ud9MyeZc= >=uSya >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ >2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 >Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 > >For subscription changes, please mail to <announce-request@lp.org> with the >word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: The Strange Clinton Death list Date: 15 Apr 1998 10:16:11 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- es For education and discussion. Not for commercial use.=20 =20 Dying to Tell: The Mysterious Deaths of Clinton Colleagues CBN April 14, 1998 Gary Lane=20 The mysterious deaths of a number of people, linked in one way or another to Bill Clinton, have generated numerous conspiracy theories. But are these deaths part of an actual conspiracy … or just coincidence? CBN News reporter Gary Lane attempts to unravel the mysteries. July 6, 1997 -- A quiet Georgetown neighborhood in the nation's capital is stunned by a gangland-style murder at the Starbucks' caf=E9. One of the three victims, assistant manager Mary "Caity" Mahoney, an avowed lesbian, had served as an intern at the White House. Was it robbery ... or a hit? November 1996, The U.S. Commerce Department -- The partially nude body of 14-year employee Barbara Wise is found in a fourth floor office following Thanksgiving weekend. "She worked in the same section as John Huang," says Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch. "She was found naked in an office after a long weekend at the Commerce Department. Does one die naked in a government office? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out something's being covered up." District of Columbia police say the Commerce Department death is no mystery at all: the DC medical examiner determined that 48-year-old Barbara Wise died of natural causes. DC homicide detectives refused to talk to CBN News about the Mahoney case, saying the Starbucks murders are still under investigation.=20 But from Arkansas to Washington, DC, unanswered questions surrounding the mysterious deaths of people connected to Bill Clinton continue to cast a cloud over the White House. "I can't think of any other President that this has happened to," says conservative analyst James Dale Davidson. "It may be that we know more about people in the nether reaches of his association than we do about some other Presidents, but I don't think that Jimmy Carter had a lot of associates that died mysteriously." The most notable in the Clinton administration? The deaths of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. Foster's body was found in Ft. Marcy Park in July 1993. Investigators for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr concluded that Foster committed suicide. Davidson is unconvinced. "The fact that the photographs are disappearing, the x-rays were allegedly taken and disappeared, the fact that all the things that you would do if you were trying to cover up and disguise the evidence have been done in this case, where the testimony of the witnesses was changed in the FBI reports -- it doesn't add up," says Davidson. "The Hardy Boys would laugh at this report; it's totally ridiculous." A majority of Americans apparently also have their doubts. A recent poll conducted for the Western Journalism Center by Zogby International found that 68 percent of those polled were either not sure that Foster committed suicide or believe he was murdered. And 77 percent of those questioned would not disagree that a cover-up of Foster's death had taken place. In the death of former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, the former head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology photography unit, Kathleen Janoski, alleges that evidence of a possible homicide was intentionally destroyed.=20 Brown was on a trade mission to Croatia when his military plane slammed into the side of a mountain. Although military pathologists noticed a possible bullet hole in Brown's skull, no autopsy was ever performed. "Surely he should be given as much attention as any Joe Blow would get if he were on the streets of Washington found dead," says radio talk show host Alan Keyes. "An autopsy would be performed. So, we have a cabinet officer die, and we don't want to do him the courtesy of making sure what the truth is." Nolanda Hill, Brown's former business partner and confidante says that Brown met with the President just days before he was sent on the trade mission to Croatia. She alleges that Brown told the President that he was going to cut a deal with the independent counsel who was investigating him. Hill testified in court that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decided that Commerce Department trade missions would be used to raise money for the Democratic party. She alleges that business executives were required to pay $50,000 to join the trips. The deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster have been the most publicized, but there are others. The internet is abuzz with a long list of the so-called "Whitewater body count." Among those on the list is Victor Raisner, the national finance co-chair for Clinton for President. He died in an airplane crash in July 1992. Then there's Paul Tulley, who was on the Democratic National Committee. He was found dead of unknown causes in his hotel room in September 1992. And then there is John Parnel Walker. An investigator for the RTC, he was looking into the Whitewater scandal. He fell from the top of the Lincoln Towers building. Also on the list:=20 Jim Wilhite, former vice chairman of Arkla, Inc., the Arkansas/Louisiana gas company, a friend of President Clinton and a former chief of staff Mac McClarty. He was killed in a 1992 skiing accident. Stanley Heard, a Hot Springs, Arkansas, chiropractor was killed in a plane crash in 1993. He reportedly treated members of Clinton's family. Bob Wilcher, a Washington attorney who was investigating federal corruption and drug running in Mena, Arkansas. He was found dead in his Capitol Hill apartment in July 1993. The body of Kathy Ferguson was found near Little Rock in May 1994. She was the ex-wife of trooper Danny Ferguson. He was named as a defendant in the Paula Jones lawsuit five days after his ex-wife's death. Ferguson's death was ruled a suicide, but friends who worked with her at the Baptist Memorial Hospital say they believe she was murdered because she knew about Clinton's alleged sexual infidelities. About a month after Ferguson's death, the body of her boyfriend, Sherwood police officer Bill Shelton, was found on Ferguson's grave. It was ruled another suicide. And then there's the story of Jerry Parks, who was gunned down gangland-style while returning from church in September 1993. Parks worked security for the Clinton campaign in 1992. His son Gary says his dad was investigating Mr. Clinton's sex life; Little Rock police have yet to solve the Parks murder.=20 Coincidence or deliberate? No one really knows for sure, but unanswered questions and incomplete investigations only seem to help perpetuate conspiracy theories. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke last January, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out against the so-called right wing conspiracy. But some of those who fear the capabilities of the Clinton administration are not right-wingers. Take Monica Lewinsky, for example -- she's hardly considered a conservative. Lewinsky reportedly told Linda Tripp that Tripp and her children were in danger if Tripp did not give testimony favorable to the President concerning the Kathleen Willey episode.=20 And Nolanda Hill was a liberal Democratic insider. "She told me and a colleague at Judicial Watch that in her view, based on statements that were made by Brown, Ron believed that this administration was capable of killing people," says Klayman. >From sexual misconduct to unexplained deaths, Alan Keyes says all these allegations erode the confidence Americans need in their leaders and institutions. "Liberty cannot survive on lies," he says. "It cannot survive on deceit, and if we tolerate it, then we will lose our liberty for sure." At least in the case of Ron Brown, why aren't Americans aggressively pushing Congress and the Justice Department to get at the truth? James Dale Davidson has a theory: "We're in the point of a hillbilly song, and the line was, 'We really don't want to know.' I really don't want to know. People sometimes shy away from unhappy truths."=20 Copyright =A9 1998 by The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. of this page and all contents. All Rights Reserved. External sites are not endorsed by The Christian Broadcasting Network. 24-hour prayer line: 1-800-759-0700 Contact us: webmaster@cbn.org =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =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: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: IRS still attacking political enemies Date: 15 Apr 1998 11:38:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- THE POWER TO DESTROY IRS continues political targeting A new look at the administration's auditing of 'enemies' By Sarah Foster Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com Before last summer Bruce Bates had no interest in politics. So when he received a notice from the IRS that his marketing and communications firm, Bruce Bates Enterprises, was to be audited, he simply shrugged and began organizing the paperwork. After all, people do get audited, and his one-person business, which he conducts from his home in West Palm Beach, Florida, had nothing to hide. The audit itself -- which lasted three months -- changed his outlook completely. It was, in his words, "incredibly brutal." So brutal, that when at last completed Bates was nearly out of business due to the demands on his time. "They asked for everything in the book," Bates told WorldNetDaily. "They wanted floor plans of my house, photographs of my office, a detailed history of my business. I spent all my time trying to comply with all the requests," he explained, "It was three months of trying to find this little thing or that little thing for them. I had canceled checks and receipts, but they wanted detailed explanations for every one." The IRS demanded his phone bills, not just the cover pages showing the amount paid each month, but the 10-15 pages itemizing the calls themselves. Plus they wanted an explanation for every single call, who he called and, ominously, why. "Bells and whistles started going off at this point," Bates recalled. "I figured there was a lot more to this than they were admitting." After three months of scrutinizing every ink blot in the records, the auditor still had found nothing. "He allowed all my deductions, couldn't find any unreported business income, and recommended to his people at the IRS that the audit be closed," said Bates. But the case was far from settled. Bates soon learned that the IRS bosses were "furious" at the outcome. "They said they weren't going to close the audit, and were going to audit me next year (for 1997) -- and they were going to have someone else do the audit," he said. For Bates that was "the clincher." He decided to start his own investigation. The question of whether his audit could have been politically motivated came to mind. Beginning in September 1996, a number of stories had been published in the press indicating the Clinton White House was using the IRS to punish conservative groups and other critics of the administration. Not having much interest in politics Bates had not paid close attention to the allegations. Why would the White House be interested in a 40-year-old marketing consultant, one relatively indifferent to politics? But Bates had not lived completely out of touch with the political world. During the late 1980s he was director of publications of the National Religious Broadcasters Association. After leaving that organization, he continued to do contract work for them and his name was listed on their masthead for "many years." Was this the link? To find out Bates drew upon his expertise developed through years in marketing. He sent questionnaires to a sampling of religious broadcasters asking whether or not they had been audited by the IRS and requesting certain details. The results were astonishing, leaving "no doubt" in his mind that his and other audits were politically motivated. The returned surveys revealed that one in 11 organizations involved in religious broadcasting are currently being audited, or have been audited within the past five years. Moreover, one out of 20 religious broadcasters were audited in 1997. The IRS itself claims the chances of an individual being audited are one out of 146. From extrapolating the data, Bates estimates that well over 200 religious broadcasters were audited in 1997. The study further showed that more than half of the audits of religious broadcasters in the last five years were in 1997 alone, indicating a huge upsurge at the very time the IRS has been under congressional scrutiny for conducting politically motivated audits." The auditing of religious broadcasters represent one more piece of evidence that the IRS is indeed being used for political purposes -- an issue WorldNetDaily has been investigating for the past year. Last June WorldNetDaily listed 14 non-profit organizations that were under audit or been through the process. In addition, several groups that had received some indication that they were to be audited, and a few whose requests for tax exempt status was delayed were also found. In November, WorldNetDaily found a number of individuals who faced audits for possible political reasons. Here, an update on some of the cases and a few new ones that have come to light: The national organization for Christian Coalition still has not received its 501-c-4 status, which it requested in 1990. A 501-c-4 status allows lobbying activities. This leaves the Christian Coalition in limbo as far as the IRS is concerned. The California chapter, which has a 501(c)4, is waiting for its 501(c)3, which it would like to cover its educational efforts. Former IRS historian and whistleblower Shelly Davis appeared to be headed for an audit, but the threat appears to have lessened for the moment. Davis, author of "Unbridled Power" -- a no-holds-barred expose of IRS policies and actions -- was sent a letter by the IRS saying she and her live-in boyfriend owed $4,912 in back taxes and interest on the home they own jointly in Manassas, Virginia. They sent a response and the case seems closed. "We did what they wanted," she says, "and they went away. But I bet they audit me later on," she added. Ted Baehr of the Christian Film and Television Commission feels he was let off fairly easily. The audit of his organization took just three-and-a-half days -- half a day less than expected. "It could have been a lot worse," says Baehr. Indeed, yes. Talk show host Chuck Harder wasn't so fortunate. As WorldNetDaily reported recently, Peoples Network Inc. which Harder and his wife, Diane, founded in 1989 as a 501-c-3 organization, has been undergoing an audit since the earliest days of the Clinton administration. He believes the IRS was "sicced" on him in retaliation for his outspoken criticism of White House policy and to destroy him and his work. The auditing is scheduled to continue up to the last day of this millennium and could go into the next. After considerable negotiation the IRS agreed to continue the organization's 501(c)3 status. The present hassle is whether Peoples Network owes back taxes on products they have sold over the years -- mostly books, videos, and shortwave radios. Harder argues the latter are integral to the mission of his organization since without them people in many areas of the country would not be able to hear his broadcasts. They should therefore, he says, be exempt. Just like books, videos, and other educational materials. "Basically, everything that loses money the IRS says is related to their non-profit status, and everything that makes money (like the shortwave radios) the IRS says is not related and they have to pay taxes on it," says Douglas Perrault, the CPA who dealt with the IRS during the early years of the audit. Robert Bennington, president of the Las Vegas-based National Audit Defense Network is handling the case for Harder. The Defense Network is an organization of over 1,000 former-IRS agents and directors who assist taxpayers undergoing the audit process. Does Bennington think the Harder audit is politically motivated? "Let's say it's a remarkable coincidence," he answers. "Especially when you look at the Paula Jones audit, the NRA audit, and all the conservative groups that are being audited -- yet there's no corresponding liberal organizations being audited. They (the IRS) say it's random and I have no proof it's otherwise, but I think if you look at the odds of something like this occurring randomly it starts to reach astronomical proportions," he says. Speaking of Paula Jones' case -- which the Audit Defense Network is also handling -- Bennington points out that the odds of being audited on a given day are 1/365th of one percent chance. "Paula Jones received an audit notice five days after she turned down President Clinton's offer for a settlement in the sexual harassment lawsuit," says Bennington. "The odds of that happening are 5/365th of one percent chance. I'm from Las Vegas -- I know about odds." Political economist and talk show host Pat Choate was also snagged by the IRS. Choate -- who was Ross Perot's running mate in 1996 -- has a small think tank in Washington, D.C., a 501-c-3, called the Manufacturing Policy Institute. Was it his opposition to NAFTA and GATT that drew the attention of the IRS to his organization? Choate doesn't know. But like so many other critics of White House policy his non-profit was audited. "Our accountant in our payroll service had made a mistake on two payrolls back in '94," Choate recalled. "It's taken something like three-and-a-half years to get it straightened out." His solution was to pay the IRS the $37,000 demanded in back taxes, interest and penalties. He is now suing to get it back -- a standard procedure. Ironically, he's already paid more in legal fees than what he paid the IRS. A spokesman for Citizens for a Sound Economy has confirmed that the group is being audited but refused to go into details. CSE is the sponsor of "Scrap the Code," a nationwide tour featuring Dick Armey, R-Texas, and Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana, debating whether the IRS code should be replaced by either a national sales tax or flat tax. Though declining to speculate on whether the audit was inspired by politcal considerations, the spokesman didn't rule out that possibility. "We're getting a lot of attention and are presenting a couple of serious alternatives to the present system, and I guess the IRS doesn't like that," he said. "Is the the audit politically motivated?" he asked rhetorically -- "well, people can draw their own conclusions." Bates' report is available on the Internet at http://www.brucebates.com/irs/brdcstrs.htm THE IRS' ENEMIES LIST List of Organizations Targeted by IRS Under audit or have completed audit Western Journalism Center Citizens for a Sound Economy Peoples Network Inc. (Chuck Harder) Manufacturing Policy Project (Pat Choate) American Life League Christian Film and Television Commission National Rifle Association National Review American Spectator National Center for Public Policy Research American Policy Center Heritage Foundation American Cause Citizens Against Government Waste Citizens for Honest Government Freedom Alliance Progress and Freedom Foundation Council for National Policy Concerned Women for America Center for Bioethical Reform The following have received warnings or other indications that they are under audit: Free Congress Foundation Fortress America Groups whose applications for tax-exempt status were or are delayed Christian Coalition Christian Coalition, California chapter San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition underwent a lengthy investigation and audit, but resulted in their being told to apply for their own exempt status. Three chapters of American Family Association Life Legal Defense Foundation Churches: tax-exempt status revoked or threatened with revocation Pierce Creek Church (Vestal, NY) Second Baptist Church (Lake Jackson, Texas) Indivividuals: subjected to audit, imprisonment, or other harassing tactics Bruce Bates Paula and Stephen Jones Jeff Evans, TV talk show host in Guam. Noted as opposed to Clinton policies. Charged with "failure to file," he was imprisoned for month of October 1996 Margie Gray, retired businesswoman. Criticized the president in an e-mail Billy Dale, former director of the White House travel office Patricia and Glenn Mendoza -- citizens who shouted remark at the president Kent Masterson Brown, attorney who represented the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in 1994 to open up Hillary Clinton's secret health care task force. Walter Gazecki, edited the documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" Shelly Davis, former IRS historian and whistleblower. Author of "Unbridled Power" =============================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: http://www.not4irs.org (fwd) Date: 15 Apr 1998 16:52:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Circulate the Petition Via E-Mail Hundreds of thousands of individuals across the country have added their signatures to the petition calling on Congress and the president to replace the current code, but we want to ensure that no taxpayer's voice goes unheard. Please encourage your friends, family and associates to "sign" the Campaign petition via e-mail. All you have to do is: (1) Copy and paste the message below into the body of an e-mail. (2) Add your own personal message (optional). (3) Send the message to everyone in your e-mail address book. Thank you for your support of the Campaign. Remember, "It's Our Money, Not THEIRS!" copy and paste the message below into an e-mail On June 17, the National Federation of Independent Business will present one million petition signatures on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. The petition reads: "I call upon the President and the Congress of the United States to Abolish the IRS Code as of December 31, 2000, and to propose to the American People for our consideration a simpler, fairer tax code which will reward work and savings." I hope that you will join me in this effort. Add your name to the petition by typing your name into the body of an e-mail message and sending it to: petition@not4irs.org And, I hope you will forward this message to your friends and colleagues who might also want to sign the petition. If you would like to learn more about this Campaign, visit www.not4irs.org. The IRS will never have access to names or addresses placed on the NFIB campaign petition. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: http://www.not4irs.org Key Points Date: 15 Apr 1998 17:06:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Key Points On: The Campaign to Abolish the IRS Code Abolish the IRS Code The IRS Code is beyond repair. It is therefore time to wipe the slate clean, to end the IRS code which is too complex and confusing for all Americans. The Campaign to Abolish the IRS Code is a grassroots effort to mobilize small business owners and supporters to abolish the IRS code. On September 22, in Independence, Missouri, NFIB President Jack Faris started a nationwide petition drive that encourages small business owners, their employees, families, patrons -- anyone who is touched by small business -- to sign a petition calling upon the President and Congress to Abolish the IRS Code as of December 31, 2000, and to replace it with a simpler, fairer tax code which will reward work and savings. Why Abolish the IRS Code? Small business owners are overwhelmed by a tax code that is complex, confusing, and disproportionately biased against the people who run small businesses. The current tax code is seven million words. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is 269 words. The Declaration of Independence is 1,337 words. The IRS' "simplest" return, the EZForm 1040, has 33 pages of instructions. The IRS Form 1040 has 76 pages of instructions. American business will spend 3.4 billion hours, and individuals will spend 1.7 billion hours, simply trying to comply with the tax code. That's equivalent to a "staff" of 3 million people working full time, year round, just on taxes. Taxes are too high. The current solution to this problem is lowering them, but even those positive steps involve modifying the tax code... which makes it even longer and more confusing. The IRS code is the core of the distrust of government that Americans feel. Campaign Kickoff Jack Faris, NFIB President, traveled across Missouri, the "Show Me State," during the week of September 21-26. Faris met with small business owners and NFIB members in stops across the state and officially launched the national grassroots effort to replace the IRS code by December 31, 2000. On Monday, September 22, Faris spoke to a crowd of nearly 200 people in Independence, the home town of President Harry Truman. A famous sign on Truman's Oval Office desk said "The buck stops here." Faris told the small business owners who gathered in Independence that day that "the code stops here." Harold Thornton, NFIB Leadership Council Chairman, a small business owner from Independence, became the first in the nation to sign the petition calling for the abolition of the IRS code. The Goals: NFIB will gather one million signatures on petitions by June 17, 1998: the opening of the Congressional Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C. At that time, the petitions will be presented to Congress as "one million reasons to stop talking about the code and to actually do something." The Campaign to Abolish the IRS Code is designed to create a sense of urgency across the country and in Congress. It is a way to let elected officials know that the time to end the IRS code has come. NFIB will not be promoting a specific replacement tax plan, but will present Congress with the following Seven Points of Principle that must be considered when developing a new tax code in order for it to be fair to small business: Lower Taxes -- to create jobs and opportunities Fosters Growth -- encourages work and savings Fair -- for all taxpayers Simple Enough -- all taxpayers can understand Neutral -- no "social engineering" Visible -- no hidden taxes Stable -- difficult to change NFIB will be taking the lead on the following actions: Present one million signatures to Congress by June 17, 1998; Urge Congress to pass legislation that will end the IRS code by December 31,2000; Support a National Advisory Referendum on a new tax code. Results: Congress, through a mechanism to be determined by the Congress, develops and completes a replacement tax code for consideration by the American people; The current IRS Code is abolished; The new century begins under transition to a new tax system for our children and grandchildren. Time Line June 17, 1998 - Present one million signatures to Congress at NFIB's Congressional Small Business Summit. July, 1998 - Congress passes legislation to sunset the IRS Code, effective December 31, 2000. April 15, 2000 - Draft of a replacement tax code (or two) is complete. November, 2000 - National Advisory Referendum: America chooses between the old code and the new code. December, 2000 - A special session of Congress is held to vote on the new code. President signs the new code into law. January, 2001 - Transition to fairer, simpler system that encourages work and savings NFIB will be the catalyst to urge Congress to sunset the IRS code and will provide a framework for a national debate regarding a replacement system. For more information, call our toll free number: 1-888-NOT-4-IRS (1-888-668-4477). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: http://jya.com/stoa-atpc.htm (fwd) Date: 16 Apr 1998 08:39:34 -0500 (CDT) You will love this is a must read: http://jya/stoa-atpc.htm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 6 February 1998: Add link to Bibliography (85K); zipped version (32K) 4 February 1998 Source: Hardcopy from STOA, Luxembourg Thanks to Axel Horns, Ulf M=F6ller and STOA EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT _________________________________________ SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT STOA AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES OF POLITICAL CONTROL Working document (Consultation version) Luxembourg, 6 January 1998 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland <boyd@seanet.com> Subject: Pol Pot Dead? Never Forget. Date: 16 Apr 1998 08:09:02 -0700 Pol Pot, genocidal leader and self styled "little Mao" is once again rumored to be dead. In the past rumors like this have floated, probably in attempts to protect him from international trial. Such a rumor covered his escape into the hills of his childhood. But wether or not this latest one is true, we owe it to ourselves and to the approximately 2 million Cambodians (fully 25% of his citizens) he murdered to -never-forget-. Commemorate the passing of one of histories infamous genocidal murderers by telling a friend about gun control today. http://www.jpfo.org/genocide.htm The Khmer Rouge he started in what was then called the Communist Party of Kampuchea still retains power, it's now known as the Party of Democratic Kampuchea and as part of the government of Cambodia has a voice in the UN. Any web search engine will give you more information with "+khmer +rouge", here are a few sites: http://www.milnet.com/milnet/tgp/data/khmer.htm http://www.itn.co.uk/World/world0727/072704w.htm http://the-tech.mit.edu/V111/N53/hersch.53o.html http://www.yale.edu/cgp/dccam/kr.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Clinton in Africa - Thomas Sowell Date: 17 Apr 1998 07:29:26 -0400 >Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:09:17 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum <eplurib@infinet.com> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <eplurib@infinet.com> >Subject: Clinton in Africa - Thomas Sowell > >Thomas Sowell > >Clinton in Africa > >PRESIDENT CLINTON IN AFRICA was like Clinton in the United States --- as >phony as a three-dollar bill. > >His apology for slavery while in Uganda was a complete farce. Most >people of African ancestry in the United States originated in West >Africa, not in Uganda, which is much farther east. It is doubtful >whether anyone from Uganda was ever brought to the United States. > >The idea that people in Africa are owed an apology ignores history as >much as Clinton ignored geography. It was the people of Africa who >captured and sold the slaves who ended up in the Western Hemisphere. > >White men died like flies in Africa during the era of slavery. They were >not about to linger around trying to capture Africans, even if the local >rulers had let them. Europeans brought their ships to the West African >coast, bought slaves that were already available and got out of there as >soon as possible, before they caught malaria or some of the many other >African diseases, for which they had neither immunity nor medicine. > >Africans, like most other non-Western peoples, saw nothing wrong with >slavery. Only within Western civilization, and within the past two >centuries, did the idea arise and spread that slavery was a moral >abomination. > >Neither Africans, Asians, Arabs nor the indigenous peoples of the >Western Hemisphere shared this Western view of slavery. All of them >resisted and evaded attempts to stamp out slavery. Only the fact that >the West had overwhelming military power and worldwide empires in the >nineteenth century caused slavery to be destroyed. > >Where the West did not have direct control, their influence, money and >threats caused other governments to ban slavery. But no other >civilization derived from within itself a moral revulsion against >slavery. > >Yet innumerable writings, movies and television specials create and >perpetuate the notion that the West in general -- or the United States >in particular -- has some special guilt for an evil that the entire >human race participated in for thousands of years, and which only the >West belatedly recognized as morally intolerable. > >Children are still being bought and sold by the thousands in Nigeria and >Benin, and 30,000 African slaves are at this very moment being held >under brutal conditions in Mauritania. > >If anything, Clinton should have been listening to apologies for slavery >from his African hosts. > >Politically, of course, none of this matters. > >None of what happened on Clinton's Africa trip was really about history, >geography or morality. It was about Clinton's appeal to his political >supporters back home in the United States, especially black politicians, >whom he will need if special prosecutor Kenneth Starr starts indictments >or the House of Representatives starts impeachment. > >In a more subtle way, Clinton was playing the race card as surely as >O.J. Simpson's lawyers. And for the same reason -- to escape the >consequences of his own actions. > >Although there is loose talk in the media about "Clinton-haters," what >ultimately happens to Bill Clinton is of minor importance in the grand >scheme of things, and I doubt if many of his critics are really focussed >on him, as such. > >What matters infinitely more is preserving the rule of law that has >spared us the tragic fates of so many other countries, all around the >world. We should never forget that, even today, the rule of law is the >exception -- not the rule -- among the nations of the world. > >Our great blessings as Americans come not from our personal merits but >from our having the good fortune to live under a rare form of >government, with a constitution dedicated to preventing concentrations >and abuses of power. Preserving that far outweighs any of the so-called >"real issues" that people want to get to, like another social program or >another tax break. > >It is not Clinton himself who is dangerous -- at least not now, as a >lame-duck president. What is dangerous is letting any president get away >with flaunting the law, for others are certain to follow in his >footsteps and continue dismantling the barriers against abuses of power. >Those barriers are our only protection and the only protections for our >children and our children's children. That is the real issue. >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 1911a1@gte.net Subject: NRA's Gun Control in PA Date: 17 Apr 1998 08:32:28 CST PLEASE READ, FORWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! THE MEMBERS' MEETING IS IN PHILADELPHIA ON TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1998, BEGINNING AT 10 AM. ALL CONCERNED MEMBERS SHOULD PLAN TO BE THERE! CALL MEMBER SERVICES AT 1-800-672-3888 FOR INFORMATION. NRA's Gun Control Law Snares an Innocent Pennsylvanian by Chris BeHanna NRA Life #CPC7725J A few days ago, I circulated an article outlining the subterfuge by which NRA-ILA ramrodded a gun control bill through the Pennsylvania legislature in 1995. This bill put into place an instant background check (which ILA loves for some reason, and will fall all over itself to get) and a host of ways that people can be disqualified from gun ownership -- a list so comprehensive that it won praise from Sarah Brady, and so comprehensive that HCI also endorsed the bill. What follows are some articles about one man who was bit by the "mental health" language. Russ Laing is a CPA who was having some family difficulties, and who slept through his alarm one morning. Someone feared that he'd harmed himself, so the police entered his home, seized his firearms, and sent him to a mental hospital for an evaluation. EVEN THOUGH MR. LAING WAS DEEMED SANE AND RELEASED, HE CANNOT GET HIS FIREARMS BACK, AND IS FORBIDDEN BY NRA-ILA'S ACT 17 FROM OBTAINING ANY MORE. This is, of course, a complete outrage, brought to you by the "Winning Team." Please consider that when you cast your ballot, and please come to Philadelphia for the Members' Meeting on June 6th at 10AM to help reform NRA so that this injustice can be redressed. Contents: * Posting by Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association head Harry Schneider to PRN, in which Mr. Schneider takes "Winning Team" apologist (and NRA Director) Ernie Padgette to task. Mr. Schneider included some letters in his posting from Russ Laing. For ease of reading, I've separated them out and removed the quote characters. * Russ Laing's letter to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (first letter separated from Mr. Schneider's post). * Russ Laing's letter to Senators Specter and Santorum (second letter separated from Mr. Schneider's post). ----- Begin Harry Schneider's PRN Post ----- From: Harry Schneider <psa@nauticom.net> To: "PRN Multiple Recipients \(E-mail\)" <PRN@airgunhq.com>, "Pa-Rkba List \(E-mail\)" <pa-rkba@listbox.com> Subject: PA-RKBA! FW: The Basic Issue: Due Process Date sent: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:49:51 -0500 Organization: PSA Send reply to: pa-rkba@listbox.com Mr. Padgette, Until now I have not participated in the debates with you on PRN - I have been too busy trying to clean up the mess in Pennsylvania and stop an anti gun roving wiretap bill that has already passed the House. What follows are letters which Mr. Russ Laing copied to me. They bothered me so much that I just had to share them and ask you some follow up questions. This will force us to look at the human costs of the Whining Team's most infamous victory: Act 17 in Pennsylvania. Mr. Laing, MBA, CPA is a member of the NRA. Act 17 mandates lifelong loss of gun rights for any person falsely or erroneously accused by any person of being a danger to themselves or to others and involuntarily detained for observation under section 302. That's right: no judge, no jury, no day in court - just lifelong loss of gun rights based upon suspicion or mistake or innuendo. Act 17 originally denied people like Mr. Laing even a right of appeal for five -- yes five -- years! We dissidents objected, the law was slightly modified to allow Mr. Laing an immediate right of appeal and he has been appealing for 18 months and it has gotten him nowhere and drained him financially. He has been pleading with NRA for financial help in getting him out of the mess that NRA got him (and many others) into. Months ago he even wrote a direct letter to God, er ah Heston. All the help that Mr. Laing got from NRA was an open letter from the NRA employee who claims he wrote most of Act 17 saying (I'm paraphrasing) that the NRA-backed judge didn't understand that an NRA-backed statute mandating lifelong loss of gun rights for all who are accused should not apply to innocents like Laing. Could you explain to me why NRA would write, endorse, lobby for, and lie to the legislature and to members to obtain passage of a bill that provides for lifelong loss of gun rights for every person who is detained for psychological observation even if (as in Mr. Laing's case) the detention is based upon a disproved suspicion or false accusation? Why should you believe or expect anyone else to believe anything that the Whining Team says if they won't do anything to help innocent NRA members (like Russ Laing) whose lives are being destroyed by the legislative errors of the Whining Team? Is the Whining Team doing anything to pressure Congress to refund the provision in federal law to allow innocents like Mr. Laing to apply for relief from disability? When Sarah Brady personally lobbies for passage of an NRA-backed bill (as happened with Act 17), shouldn't that be cause for concern? Isn't the damage to Mr. Laing and the many other victims of Act 17 too high a price to pay for instant check? Harry Schneider, PSA Chairman Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association Inc. ----- End Harry Schneider's PRN Post ----- ----- Begin Russ Laing's Letter to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ----- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:30:43 To: letters@post-gazette.com From: Russ Laing <rlaing@usa.net> Subject: Re: The Basic Issue: Due Process Cc: activist@sgi.net Editor: You have here, below, a very ironic and interesting counterpoint to the Johnny Gammage case. I am a white, conservative male who was subjected to a frightening, "dynamic" invasion of my unlocked home by gun-waving officers of a local (West Deer Twp) police department who, without a warrant, permission, or justifiable cause stormed into my unlocked home after surrounding it SWAT-style for some 40 minutes (by the reckoning of my many neighbors who watched), pounced on me while I slept in my bedroom, and forced me to accompany them to a local hospital where I was detained against my will for six days -- and then discharged, never having been given any hearing or other adjudication process of any kind. I have no criminal record (I don't even have points on my traffic record), no history of violence or threats; I hold a responsible position in senior management for the largest health care provider in Pennsylvania, and I was creating no disturbance, made no threats of any kind, etc. How did this happen...why? Johnny Gammage and I share exactly one common element: we both posed a seeming threat to law enforcement personnel because of their own personal predjudice: Johnny Gammage because he was black, [and] myself because it was known that I owned a gun collection. And just like Johnny Gammage, I was violated by a police force that exercised unrestrained power because it felt it was immune to accountability (when was the last time the P-G ever reported anything via the West Deer Police Department?). They siezed my gun collection, which by their own testimony was: (1) locked away and secure upon their entry, and (2) had never even been an issue in any way in their actions in entering my home. By virtue of their detaining me - without a warrant or any other adjudication process at any point - I have been branded as "mentally ill" under recent Pennsylvania firearm legislation (Act 17 of 1995) , meaning that I can never again own a firearm, and my valuable siezed property has been forfeited without any compensation. I would have had far more legal protections and rights had I been accused of committing a felony...or even a traffic ticket. I am alive today, and in part I attribute this to having fully cooperated with the outrageous and illegal actions of these police officers, offering no resistance. As a white, male, formerly a strong law & order/police advocate, I can now begin to understand the sense of powerlessness and anger that the black community (and much of the white population) feels over the Johnny Gammage situation - and the countless other less sensational and usually untold stories such as mine. An attempt to seek return of my siezed property is slowly - and expensively - winding its way through an indifferrent, sometimes hostile court system. This has included four different hearings a year ago in front of Common Pleas Judge David Cerone whose only question to me personally was to ask why I bought the particular models of firearms included in my gun collection. It included a court-ordered psychological examination that I passed with flying colors and was accepted by the court, and ended in a hearing in which the Assistant District Attorney Dan Fitzsimmons declared that the right of ownership of firearms under the constitution was reserved for the National Guard. Three different prosecuting attorneys of the DA's office were involved in my case -- a case which involved no crime (other than perhaps the actions of the local police officers). Among them, Kim Clark, recently expressed her intense grief and frustration at the tragic Ryan Hacke shooting. She should know that when, out of predjudice, the DA's office devotes as much time and attention as it has to prosecuting someone such as myself, who has never committed - and is not accused of committing - a crime, it is naturally deflecting valuable resources from the problems posed by the Vaughn Mathis's of this world. And those who administrate law enforcement should now realize that when police officers act out of unjustified predjudice, or emotion, with unrestrained force and no fear of accountability -- a crime is being committed. Like the barber who was maced after complaining about a (Ross Twp) police car blocking his parking lot, or the off-duty (Shaler Twp) officer who tailgated a motorist on Route 28 creating an incident in which he drew his service pistol (his chief dismissed the actions of this officer in cavalier fashion: "some people drive a little to the left, some a little to the right -- he drives too close", and then this same officer caused an accident with severe injuries to others while on vacation). Or City of Pgh's own "Easter Seals Poster Child" George Trosky, who has been reported to have had involvement in a series of incidents of domestic and public violence. Or what happened to Johnny Gammage, and now even me. Unless we can, through public oversight and accountability, defuse the incredible absolute power of law enforcement agencies from the local police department up through national agencies such as the IRS, it will fall to the legislature to pass laws providing protections of due process guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions, and the courts to fairly adjudicate these cases. But no matter what the decision of the court - it came much too late for Johnny Gammage. At least I'm alive to dream about the justice that we all seek, but never find. ----- End Russ Laing's Letter to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ----- ----- Begin Russ Laing's Letter to Senators Specter and Santorum ----- Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 16:25:40 To: senator@santorum.senate.gov From: Russ Laing <rlaing@usa.net> Subject: Re: The Basic Issue: Due Process Cc: crkeenan@dmcpc.com groots@nra.org Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 16:23:02 To: Senator_Specter@specter.senate.gov (Senator Specter) From: Russ Laing <rlaing@usa.net> Subject: Re: The Basic Issue: Due Process In-Reply-To: <00340E4B.1946@specter.senate.gov> Dear Senator Specter: Per the attached acknowledgement from your office, I would indeed be interested to hear your view on this issue. My mailing address and phone number: [...deleted for privacy...] The issue broadly involves: 1. My being personally violated by recent firearms legislation passed in Pennsylvania (Act 17 of 1995, amending the Uniform Firearms Act) -- which allows for confiscation of property and forfeiture of basic rights guaranteed under both the federal and state constitutions ---without the need for ANY formal hearing before a judge or other lawful authority, nor any other adjudication process. While the subject legislation is a Pennsylvania State statute, your attention is asked in the matter of the serious precedent that has been set in which the basic right to due process under the federal constitution is being undermined by actions of the state legislature. 2. That a Judge of the Common Pleas Court of Pennsylvania, Judge David S. Cercone, would erroneously invoke this Pennsylvania statute (Act 17) by way of defining the application of FEDERAL regulations of possession of firearms by citizens of the Commonwealth. By doing so, Judge Cercone has inappropriately allowed the Pennsyvlania legislature to effectively over-rule federal due process protections of rights under the constitution, and specifically, as provided by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in regulations published in the Federal Register in September, 1996. It is of particular concern that Judge Cercone has made such an expansionist (and just plain technically/legally incorrect) ruling while concurrently being considered as an active candidate for a position on the federal judiciary system. The issues presented in my case actually affect a large nuber of citizens of Pennsylvania, most of whom are unaware of the loss of their rights (and the forthcoming confiscation of their legally-owned property) due to delays in the implementation of the administrative/notification process attendant to Act 17. While the issues are little-known, and initially complex, they can be summarily reduced to this: a law-abiding citizen who is in the privacy of his home, making no disturbance or threat of any kind, has been: 1. Subjected to having his home invaded by law enforcement officers who possess neither a warrant nor any other permission/justification for their dynamic, gun-waving entry into his unlocked home while the individual slept in his bedroom; 2. Personally detained for six days without a warrant, hearing or any other legal protection - being discharged without ever having had any adjudication of this unlawful detention; 3. Legally-owned valuable property permanently confiscated without compensation, or even the need to show legal justification; and 4. Compelled to forfeit fundamental rights under both the state and federal constitutions. 1-4: all without any formal hearing, warrant or court adjudication process of any kind, at any point in time! If you find this situation alarming and outrageous, as I have through personally being violated as described above, I hope you become involved. Many other similarly affected citizens, and an even larger number of those otherwise simply interested in the matter of basic constitutional rights: (1) to be free from unreasonable search & siezure, (2) to own firearms, and (3) to the right to due process under the law --- have already taken an interest. I hope you will, too. I look forward to hearing from you Russell G. Laing At 11:23 AM 12/9/97 -0500, you wrote: > Thank you for contacting my office through the internet. > > I am very concerned about the issues that are facing my constituents > of Pennsylvania. Please continue to keep me apprised of your views > and concerns. > > Should your message necessitate a response, please be sure to include > your Postal address and telephone number so that I will be able to > respond to you promptly. > > Again, thank you for your email message. > > Sincerely, > > > > Arlen Specter ----- End Russ Laing's Letter to Specter and Santorum ----- 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen David M. Gross* Robley T. Moore Michael J. Beko* John Guest Larry R. Rankin James A. Church Fred Gustafson Albert C. Ross* William Dominguez Don L. Henry* Frank H. Sawberger Howard J. Fezell* William B. Hunt Thomas L. Seefeldt Daniel B. Fiora* Phillip B. Journey* Kim Stolfer Arnold J. Gaunt Michael S. Kindberg* John H. Trentes Fred Griisser Jeff Knox Glen I. Voorhees Jr.* Wesley H. Grogan Jr.* John C. Krull Those with an asterisk have been deliberately targeted to be PURGED as "extremists." What's "extreme" about demanding your rights? Help NRA help you and support these candidates! 2. Visit their web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains candidate statements) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) U.S. mail point-of-contact: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, S.C. 29657 ------------------------------------------------------ | If guns cause crime, | If you want my | | crime, all of mine are | guns, then you | | defective. | want a war. | |----------------------------------------------------- | Support the Chinese | If Charles Schumer didn't | | Underground! Buy an | exist, it would not be | | SKS and bury it! | necessary to invent him. | ------------------------------------------------------ -*-*-* Visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 *-*-*- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: RACIST ROOTS OF GUN CONTROL !! (fwd) Date: 17 Apr 1998 08:53:25 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Chris W. Stark" <Director@GOA-Texas.org> ****JPFO e-mail Alert!**** Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. Aaron Zelman - Executive Director 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 http://www.JPFO.org Against-Genocide@JPFO.org 04/16/98 -------- ITS PAYBACK TIME: DESTROY THE CAREERS OF EVERY GUN PROHIBITIONIST BY EXPOSING THEIR RACIST POLICIES! Dear JPFO Member & e-mail subscriber, You hold in your hand the most explosive intellectual ammunition ever created to destroy American "gun control." This booklet, which your support made possible, changes the terms of the debate in our favor. Never forget, we're in a public relations war to win hearts and minds. This new booklet boldly exposes the ugly secret of "gun control." It firmly plants the pro-liberty position on the moral high ground. How? By telling the truth. "Gun Control" is not just another modem, misguided policy idea. The debate over "gun control" is not about personal opinions where "reasonable minds can differ." "Gun Control" is no more debatable today than is Negro slavery - because the slavery culture created American "gun control." You must seize this opportunity to push "gun control" advocates into their evil corner. Challenge them to explain why they support laws that, in origins and effects, are racist. If a gun prohibitionist refuses to address the issue, then you can "tar and feather" him or her in newspapers, magazines, talk shows, flyers, town meetings, and the Internet. You have the truth - you have the sledgehammer - have the courage to use it now. "Gun Control Is Racist" smashes the deceitful arguments about permits, "sporting purposes," waiting periods, licensing, registration, "Saturday Night Specials, " and ammunition limits. The evil spawn of slavery, oppression and racism, "gun control" laws arose for one purpose: to keep Black people defenseless, so that they could be enslaved and oppressed. The truth is out, and we must act now! For years the gun prohibitionists ridiculed us peaceful, non-violent gun owners. Remember? They called us racists, cultists, Neanderthals, macho wannabes, stupid hicks, extremists, gun nuts, fascists, etc. They smeared us just to discredit our views and disarm us. But the opposite is true - yesterday's draft-dodgers, college protesters and hippies have become today's racist pigs! It's payback time: Here is what you must do. 1. Order 100 copies of the "Gun Control Is Racist" booklet. Go to: http://www.jpfo.org/books.htm 2. Send a copy to every African American (Black) legislator, reporter, business person, newspaper, and radio station. 3. Send copies to all "gun control" supporters (of all races) in your area. 4. Challenge all of these folks to oppose racist "gun control" laws. 5. If they refuse, then you publicly point out that they intentionally support racist policies. You can't lose this argument! Time is short! Take action today to safeguard the future of firearms ownership! Your future, and that of your kids, is in your hands. Please, go to http://www.jpfo.org/books.htm and order a bundle of Gran'pa Jack booklets to give out! In the battle against "gun control" we have the numbers, but time is our enemy. Every owner of firearms must get a copy of "Gun Control is Racist. " Every gun owner must gain the courage that comes from knowing that we are morally right. And every gun owner must act - either personally or by financially helping others do it - those who have the courage to fight for liberty must have your full support. Now that the Clinton Administration is highlighting the lingering problem of racism in America, there is not a better time to destroy "gun control" by exposing its racist roots. (The people who most owe an apology to Black Americans are the "gun control" advocates) Act now! Do it for yourself, for your loved ones, for liberty itself. Order 100 booklets today. Yours for Liberty, Aaron S. Zelman P.S. If you are not able to order booklets for a local effort, then please send a generous donation to help JPFO print and nationally circulate "Gun Control Is Racist" - the truth must get to all Americans! the right to keep and bear arms must be saved! Right now, if you become a member of JPFO, you will receive all 4 Gran'pa Jack booklets, and receive the latest JPFO Firearms Sentinel magazine. This is an $18.00 value. Not bad, since membership to JPFO is only $20.00 annually. But it does not stop here. You will continue to receive your subscription to the JPFO Firearms Sentinel, and receive our anticipated NEW releases of Gran'pa Jack booklets. Time would fail to tell you of our "Gran'pa Jack" cartoon booklet series. For more info on Gran'pa Jack booklets, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/books.htm TO BECOME A JPFO MEMBER, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm There you will see a printable member application, along with info on membership. If you wish, you can become a member using our on-line application as well. Membership IS open to ALL Law abiding citizens (..if you obey the Bill of Rights, you are "Law Abiding" in JPFO's books!). Join us in this battle against the Racist Roots of "Gun Control"! **************************************************************** Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) Chris W. Stark - Director of Electronic Communications 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 Against-Genocide@JPFO.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN TO ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." **************************************************************** Copyright (c) 1998, JPFO Republication permitted provided this article & attribution is left intact in its original state. **************************************************************** TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: subscribe@JPFO.org ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". **************************************************************** -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: LOTT book. Definitive study on American gun self-defense. Buy online. (fwd) Date: 17 Apr 1998 08:33:46 PST On Apr 17, chairman@gunssavelives.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Buy the Lott book online now! $23.00 list for $16.10 discounted. link under "Books" at http://thePentagon.com/training (opinions here are not those of any organization.) [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@USIT.NET> Subject: (fwd) TWA800: Village Voice Article (fwd) Date: 18 Apr 1998 11:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Goddard occasionally overstates things, but I assume the VV must really have run an article such as he describes. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Village Voice just published a new article on the crash of TWA 800 entitled: "Flight 800: The Missing Evidence - When Suspicious Debris Arrived in the Hangar the FBI Took It Away." The article cites evidence of evidence tampering and obstruction of justice by the Federal Bureau of Investigation: http://www.villagevoice.com/ink/news/16davey.shtml The article cites a wing piece with high-velocity punctures in it, which was flown specially to the Washington D.C. FBI lab, afterwhich it "vanished," probably into the same black hole that the front door of Mount Carmel (Waco), the photos and X- rays of Vince Foster, and bombs found inside the Murrah building were "vanished" into; maybe even the same black hole that the TWA 800 researcher Jeremy Crocker got vanished into: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/threats.htm#DISAPPEARED FBI: the truth disappears here. The portion of the wing mentioned in the Village Voice article may be this portion of a wing: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/wing.htm The Village Voice article also states that: Last fall before a Senate committee, Inspector General Michael Bromwich stated that "hundreds if not thous- ands of cases are implicated" in the mishandling of evidence in FBI labs. The former FBI crime lab unit chief James Corby also testified that ex- plosives unit chief J.Thomas Thurman, who was involved in the TWA Flight 800 investigation, was a particular problem. "Special agent Thurman DID ALTER REPORTS INTENTIONALLY," Corby said. [emphasis added] The author of the Village Voice article, Robert Davey, was just interviewed on the Bob Grant Radio Show, on which eyewitness Major Meyer also spoke. This can found here, April 16, during the second hour: http://www.audionet.com/radio/archives/wor/grant **************************************************************** VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________ TWA-800 CASE CORE --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm ________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Paranoia or Prophecy? (fwd) Date: 18 Apr 1998 11:15:43 PST On Apr 18, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The Double Cross A transcript from OF, BY & FOR THE PEOPLE GMN Ed. Note: We have no way to verify this story, but we can say that we began seeing these reports 20 years ago, and they are coming in much more closely together now, and are more detailed and more insistent. We know, of course, the New World Order crowd is up to no good. As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed. As watchmen of Israel, we feel it is our duty to pass these reports on, no matter how unpleasant they are. The following is the edited transcript of the January 22, 1996, airing of Blueprint for Survival, with host Steven Quayle. Steve's guest was "Mr. C.," a former military officer working as an inspector for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. C. has personally inspected many of the mysterious military sites that are being erected around -our country. His experiences, insights, and warnings are a sobering wake-up call for those of us who haven't seriously undertaken our required physical preparations to defend ourselves against the coming dark age, under "The New World Order." Read and heed. SQ: My guest tonight is "Mr. C," a former inspector for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. C, give us a little background on yourself. How many years were you in the military and what are some of the things you did as you traveled around the world for the U.S. Government? Mr. C: I was in the military for 22 years, and later went to work inside the government at one of the highest levels. I am a holder of the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three awards of the Joint service Medal, all the Vietnamese awards, as well as the Joint Meritorious Unit Medal. When I retired a couple of years ago, as the equivalent of a Field Grade Officer, I was awarded the Secretary of Defense Civilian Service Medal. I've been around world in thirty-seven different countries, have spent more than fifteen years overseas, and can converse in five languages. The infrastructure is set up. They have concentration camps set up for resisters and dissidents. The 'RESISTERS' are those gun owners who refuse to give up their weapons, and the 'DISSIDENTS' are the Christians, Patriots, and Constitutionalists. These camps are set up, and I have seen them. It's not so much what I learned while I was in the government, but rather my understanding of government, as to how it operates, i.e., the budget system, etc., and being able to put bits and pieces together. The average person doesn't know how the government operates; but if you know how it operates, you can see that most of what they are doing today is absolutely unconstitutional. SQ: ladies and gentlemen, I've asked Mr. C to deal specifically with the prison camps and the government's plans for dealing with the non-New World Orderites: Christians, Patriots, Constitutionalists, or whatever you call yourselves. Feds & Police Not Exempt Mr. C: First of all, the New World Order intends to double-cross the Federal Government people. All of you federal folks out there who are listening, I want you to know that I was a Federal official for thirty-one years. They will double-cross you. Under the New World Order plans, no American will be allowed to have weapons, and no American will be in any position of authority whatsoever. When you have finished your work for them, they will double-cross you. Be advised of that and understand it. I briefed an FBI office on this, and one of the younger FBI fellows asked, "Do you mean to tell me that they are going to replace us with foreign cops?" That's right, I told him. Then he asked me for a copy of the Vampire Killer 2000 book. I have briefed several other VIPs, and one State Police Commander asked me a final pertinent question: "What are they going to do with us American policemen?" I told him they intend to take his gun away from him and put him in the same prisons they'll be putting the rest of us into. Slave Camps With that prelude, I will now go into the infrastructure that has been set up to incarcerate and execute Americans, and the locations used for these purposes. I have seen these facilities myself and have taken pictures of them. I have traveled about a hundred thousand miles around the country over the past two years, taking pictures. I can piece these things together. The average person will have a piece of the puzzle, but he won't be able to piece it together, unless someone is able to explain it and show it to him. There are people listening who are new to all of this, but they will be able to say, "Wow, I saw one of those down the road!" or, "Hey, I saw that happening!" And their own experiences are the pieces that they have to the puzzle. For example, I was briefing a Chief of Staff to a Two-Star General, and I told him during the briefing that he would get a piece of the puzzle. When I got about one-third of the way into my briefing, he said, 'You know, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has taken over the Army Reserves." I told him, "yes, that's part of the puzzle, and it is unconstitutional for them to do that. A bureaucracy cannot control military forces." There are two massive prisons at Camp Buckner, North Carolina, built side-by-side. One was built earlier, and the other was built only last year. The thing is about a half-mile square, is barb-wired, and has a helicopter control tower in the middle of it. (They plan to use helicopters for this whole strike force.) Every military base has a stockade. At Seymour Johnson AFB you will find an empty, barb-wired Federal prison camp. There is another prison camp in Virginia, not too far from Warrington. Everything that is being done in places like Bosnia or Somalia is going to happen here as well. Transfer Points They have also set up what I would refer to as "transfer points." They have rail, ground and road transfer points. If you know what to look for, you can see them. For example, they are setting up "berms" alongside the roads, which are used to hide the choppers as they land. there is a berm set up at the prison facility near Warrington, Virginia, and directly across from it is a loading dock that is becoming overgrown with weeds. But when it is time to use them, the weeds and growth will shield everything but the rotor blades of the choppers from the road -- no one will be able to see what the choppers are unloading. Across the road is a railroad track, and across from the railroad track is the quarry. About a mile from there is the jail. If you know what to look for, you can spot them. Death Camps There is a death camp at Beech Grove, in the southeast quadrant of Indianapolis. There are ten maintenance barns at the Amtrak repair facility, that have received so much attention from Linda Thompson and Mark Koernke, that they have set up an open house tour of the place on the first Saturday of every month. You've got to know what you're looking for, if you get to go through the tour as I did. (An Amtrak guard told me that the guards there have even been issued black uniforms. He had his in his locker.) It is a 129-acre facility with fences on the outside, with the tops leaning inward. The second fence on the inside also has the fence tops leaning in. The windows of the buildings have been bricked up. Hence, you have three levels of security, for an Amtrak repair barn! There are three 25-knot helicopter wind socks (which are not the correct ones to use for chemical spills; you use 10-knot wind socks for chemical spills). These buildings, of this old 1910 facility, have had $6 million in repairs and upgrades. There are high security turnstiles, high security lighting, and signs which mark red and blue zones (we'll discuss the colors shortly). One of the barns is large enough to put four boxcars into, and there are vents on the top of the barn. They're only going to handle category 1 and 2 (red and blue) people there; there will be no "green" people handled. This facility will be used for execution and maximum security. That facility exists, and there are others around the country. Primarily you have to look for facilities with new fences (Ed. Note: particularly fences with barbed-wire tops that lean inward). Prison Transfer Centers SQ: Let's talk about the prison transfer centers. Obviously there is one at Oklahoma City, one at Sea-Tac (Seattle-Tacoma), etc. Mr. C: First of all, there are helicopter pick-up-points. If you'll notice, some of the rest stops on the Interstate Highways have been barricaded; those are set up for a different purpose. Here, you must have an operational mindset in order to understand what they are doing. Look for new fencing, hightech equipment, squad car gates, high-tech lights, etc. There are intermediate points, such as airports, with brand new metal fences around them, and buildings located down into woods, etc., where you can't see what they will be doing. I've talked to a General Officer who has been to Oklahoma City and seen the Federal Transfer Facility there. I have pictures of it and have put the pieces together. They were forced, in April, 1995, to declare the facility, and they held an open house on April 4. On April 7, they admitted that they had a prisoner airline with twelve 747s operating out of 38 cities, with "feeder lines." These feeder lines are the 3,000 black helicopters that Bush signed over to the Treaty on Open Skies. The feeder lines will feed the transfer facility from the intermediate sites, if there is a declaration of martial law in a "national emergency" (and they will cause this to happen --there will be more "Oklahoma Cities" and "Arizona derailments," etc., until they can declare a national emergency.) They will, at that point in time, bring their goons out of hiding (the foreign troops that they have hidden, by the thousands, in places all over the country). You can see these goons now if you're watching for them; I have many first-person reports, from all over the country, and I have even seen them myself, and taken pictures of them. There are individuals who live in the mountains, who call themselves Russian "journalists." They are moles. These goons will come out of their holes, and they have lists of names of people in their respective territories who they are to start picking up. Helicopter Communications To control these helicopters, they must have a control network, where they can communicate without going through the FAA. I'm a pilot myself, and that's how I've figured this out. All around the country they have AWOS (Automatic Weather Observation System) towers, built by Scan Corporation. These are little towers alongside the road, which have a spinner on top with a couple of little canisters hanging off; sometimes they have a fence around them. It gives you a terminal weather forecast, all the weather information that the helicopter pilot has to have to operate. To access the terminal weather forecast on that tower (which has a telephone number) he has a cellular telephone system. There is a telephone number on the cellular telephone system that they can use to call the tower in the area they will operate in. The pilot must know the weather forecast at the terminal area he is going into. They call in on the cellular system and get the information they need; they do not have to call in with their chopped accents to the FAA Flight Service Station to get the weather forecast. Just last year, they banned all scanners from the cellular phone frequencies. You can understand what they are doing here; you can't hear the chopper pilots calling in to the AWOS towers. "Red" list The Category I "red" list includes those people who are to be picked up before unobtrusive preparations for martial law have taken place. They've got to pick off the leaders up front. You will be taken from your house, sneaked past the Sheriff's Department and the State Police, and taken to the cul-de-sac. From there you will be flown to the intermediate point, where you are loaded onto a big 64-passenger C-47 Chinook helicopter, all black, unmarked and illegally operating under the Treaty on Open Skies. Then they will fly you to one of the aforementioned 38 cities, where you will board one of those twelve 747s (or a 737, or a 727). I know a General Officer who flew on one of these 727s, and it was flown by FEMA pilots. They are using our own people to pull this thing off. They have to use some of our own people now, because they can't get enough foreigners into position. You may be taken straight to a camp -- you may not go to the Federal Transfer Center. When you are picked up on a "red" pickup, you will stay on the red route: you will not be taken off the red route. When you are red listed, you will be taken to a red camp. I'm not exactly sure whether they go all the way to Oklahoma City and then back to a death chamber, but you will be executed. there are no re-education plans for people on the red lists. "Blue" list At some point along the line, martial law will be declared. Then the blue lists will be picked up. The blue lists comprise those people who are maximum security risk, and who might be "re-educated." The bunch that is doing all of this is operating out of the highest places in the Capitol of the United States. Every base has been covered. They have thought of everything. They've hardened the electrical company power facilities. If you go to York, South Carolina, you'll see that the fence tops are turned inward at the York, SC, Electrical Power Company yard. If someone is going to steal telephone poles, you would think that they would turn the fence tops outward. Any big fence you see that has been built recently is a possible detention/detainment facility, and they can execute there.. They probably have some sort of accountability program in order to insure that the right people are knocked off. Amos 3:7 SQ: I'd like to make a statement here, before Mr. C. continues. I'm not here to entertain or to be a "talk radio personality." I'm here for one reason; and that is because the Living God has instructed me to shout it from the roof-tops. God is giving His people warnings. there are those people who want to go to prophecy conferences to see when the rapture is going to come (which I believe is not going to come), and hear all the peaceful prophets prophesying good news and glad tidings. I believe that Mr. C, who is also very much a man of God, has the same charge by the Holy Ghost: to warn you people out there, Christian and non-Christian alike, how this is going to happen. God doesn't do anything without revealing His secrets to His servants. Mr. C: Amos 3:7; that's right! Sometime back, around 3:00 in the morning, He said to me, "If you will call upon me, I will show you great and wonderful things that thou knowest not." I said, "Okay Lord, let me see what they are. " Sound the Warning Anyway, if you suspect that you may be on the red list, if you have had black helicopters over your house, or if you've been involved in these kinds of things, you need to have some form of communications, such as a cellular telephone. When they pull this thing off, they will have a limited time to pick up people. They have routes to run. However, they can't get everyone at the same time, so you need to have a recall roster, and it should be set up like a pyramid scheme. In other words, if you experience an attack on your place and you can somehow get on the phone you may still perish, but at least you can get the word out to someone down the road. Once they declare martial law you'll know it's on, but there are guys who won't get any advance knowledge. SQ: In your opinion, how long will it take from the time they launch the red list to the declaration of martial law? Will it be hours or days? Mr. C: Probably days. I have no providential guidance on the time interim, but there will be a time in time. SQ: One thing that the listener: need to see is that there is not going to be some future event where the invading troops are going to show up - they're already strategically placed here! Everything that the supercomputers can add to the equation has already been added in. They've already determined how many people are going to die, on both sides. They've got it all figured out. They've got every stone covered - with the exception of the Rock that was cut out without human hands. CALLER: Well, what chance do you two guys think you've got when all of this comes down? SQ: I can put my hands in my pocket and thank God that He made me a man. I can yell out at the top of my lungs in prayer, that God's people will rise up. I may not have much of a chance, but I'll go down in history as someone who tried. NOTE: Of, By and For the People newspaper is in the process: of obtaining the entire transcript Steve Quayle's interview with Mr. C [America's Bulletin did not provide an address for Of By and For the People newspaper, so if interested, please write them at the address below. - GMNA Ed.] Reprinted from: The America's Bulletin, Dec. 96 3536 N Pacific Hwy. Medford OR 97501 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chuckrn@aone.com (Charles R. Norgaard) Subject: Date: 18 Apr 1998 13:21:05 -0700 The following information appeared in the Lawyers Second Amendment Society magazine, I thought it was relevent to our times. It was submitted by Daniel J. Schultz founder of The Liberty Pole, 18034 Ventura Blvd., No.329, Encino, Calif. Tele. Ph. # 818-734-3066. This needs the widest possible circulation that is available. The pre-oath is not a panacea; you must also get to know your candidates on a personal level to gauge their character; but if a candidate will not sign the Pre-oath, you will have strong evidence that he does not take his oath of office seriously. If a candidate does sign it, not only will you have some indication that the candidate takes his constitutional duties seriously, but you will have something in writing to use against them in the next election if they are elected, and have not lived up to their solemn oath to support and defend the constitution. Here is the Pre-Oath: Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America. "I am a candidate for an elective office under the Constitution of the United States of America. I know that if I am elected, before taking office, Article VI requires that I shall take an Oath to support the Constitution. I subscribe to the following beliefs and today take the following Oath: The right of the prople to keep and bear arms, individually and collectively, organized and unorganized, is an inalienable natural right, and the free exercise and enyoyment of this right is guarenteed and protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of American from all infringments. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, written by the Founders of the Federal Republic , is a confirmation that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inherent natural right. The Second Amendment confirms that liberty must be kept forever fortified;, that a disarmed populace is ruinous to the security of a free state; and that the individual has an inalienable natural right to self-defense in order to protect person, family, home, and property. The second Amendment is an unceasing restraint against governmental interference with the natural rights to which it refers, and it forbids any curtailment or infringment of those rights. The reasoning and discourses made on the Second Amendment's behalf, by the authors of the amendment, shall be the basis for the clarification and proper interpretation of this guaranteed natural right of the people of this State, and of the other States under the Constitution of the United States of America, to keep and bear arms. If elected, after taking the Oath of office required by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America, I shall never vote for legislation that prohibits the private ownership of arms or ammunition, or confiscates the peoples privately owned arms or ammunition; nor take any action, directly or indirectly , which would restrict or deny the guaranteed natural right of the people to purchase, own, possess, sell, lease, loan, manufacture, transport or use arms and ammunition for the purpose of defense of person, family, home or property, regardless of any condition that may exist, including a declaration of State or national emergency. I believe that the elected representatives of the people are charged, by the oath to support the Constitution required by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America, with the duty and responsibility to protect the inalienable natural arms rights of the people so that the right of self-defense, defense of family, home, and property, defense of a free state, and recreational use of arms,including the sport of hunting, shall be preserved. Now get to it!!! Who was it that said something like " The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered by the blood of tyrants, traiters, and patriots for liberty and freedom, real freedom to prevail. I am going to ask every politician that I know, and a few I dont, to sign the above pledge, and if they wont, I will work hard to see that they do not succeed in the political arena. Chuck.N. 24 Inf Div. Korean Police Action - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #81 (fwd) Date: 19 Apr 1998 10:37:22 PST On Apr 19, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia April 19, 1998 #81 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html SENATORS PROTECT FELONS It is the civic duty -- not the option, but the duty -- of every American citizen to turn in any felon they know about. So says the "Misprision of felony" law (18 USC 4). The law states: "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." Got it? If a judge can perceive that a felony that you knew about was committed, or may have been committed, and you didn't snitch, you can get a fine and up to three years in the slammer. So, it stands to reason that if you are a public official and know of the commission of a felony, the offense is that much worse. Right? Lawmakers and bureaucrats take note. Cause, this is going to get interesting to you rather soon. Anybody remember about honor and integrity anymore? Those hackneyed terms were defined somewhat like: "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code." And we once demanded that public servants act like they have some. However, times have changed. A lot! For instance, let's apply the "Misprision" law to Congress. Article VI, clause 3 of our United States Constitution requires that Senators and Representatives take an oath of office to support the Constitution. The specific language of the oath is set by statute enacted by Congress (5 USC 3331). The exact words have changed several times since 1789. However, the Congressional Oath of Office now reads: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Another law (2 USC 21, 25) requires that Members must be sworn before they can take their seats and/or do anything official. And, one would suppose, Members of Congress would also be promising to obey all federal laws. Yeah, yeah. That last sentence was quite a leap, I know. But, bear with me a while, cause they are American citizens, after all. I mean, the law "is" supposed to apply to them, too. So, let's pretend it really does. During the Thompson Committee hearings on campaign finance corruption a number of things came out. As the Committee report identified, there was a link between illegal communist Chinese money and campaign donations laundered into the Democratic National Committee campaign coffers. There was also (since proven in court) reports of labor union money being illegally laundered into the Clinton and Gore campaign fund and the DNC campaign war-chest. There were a couple dozen other illegal activities too, but those two will do fine for this argument. The Senate Committee held some hearings, isolated a few crimes, and then cut it off. They had to cut it off when they did. The trail was leading too close to home. That was because there were at least five Senators involved in the illegal activities. Worse yet, one of the Senate's very own was chairman of the DNC at the time and hence directly involved in overseeing all of the corruption. Anyone remember DNC Chairman Senator Christopher Dodd mouthing off on TV every night in favor of Clinton, Clinton & Gore? Clearly, Dodd was the kingpin in a conspiracy to launder illegal funds. He directed the operation. Sure he had lots of help, but that's not the point. Dodd was the chairman of the committee that broke all those laws. Every member of the United States Senate knows that Senator Christopher Dodd was deeply involved in laundering illegal money into the DNC and the Clinton and Gore campaign fund. Yet, not one United States Senator is saying a word about it. Interestingly enough, the federal government has a law that covers that, too. It's called "Accessory after the fact" (18 USC 3): "Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. "Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years." The Senate as a whole is doing its best to protect Dodd, and the other involved Senators, from prosecution. Everyone in the United States Senate knows of these laws. They also know that when they all collectively intentionally keep quiet about these breaches of the law, they are involved in a conspiracy. Yet, no Senator is speaking up. So, already we have misprision, accessory after the fact and conspiracy to obstruct justice. There's more, but we've already far exceeded our word count. The fact is, the United States Senate protects criminals. JUST ANOTHER BAD JUDGE A federal judge is calling for an investigation of Independent Council Kenneth Starr, reports the national media this week. Sounds important. That is, until we learn exactly who and why. As it turns out, the judge is none other than U.S. District Judge Henry Woods of Little Rock. Woods, a Clinton crony, was conveniently assigned to hear the fraud and conspiracy case against then Governor Jim Guy Tucker. But, he got bumped for cause. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals removed him back in March of 1996. Actually, Starr asked the appeals court to remove Woods after Woods inappropriately tossed out Tucker's initial indictment. Now, Woods says that the very same conservative groups accused of funneling money to a key government witness, like David Hale, might also have orchestrated his removal from a Whitewater case originally assigned to him. "It is important to me, and I believe to the integrity of the judicial process, to know whether any person in the justice system, including those in (Starr's office) or in the legislative branch, was aware of machinations to affect and determine what judge would preside over the ... case," Woods said in a public statement. Woods has real proof "conservatives" were giving money to David Hale, too. Caryn Mann, also of Arkansas, claims Hale received money from conservative activists working for a foundation that publishes the American Spectator magazine, and that Hale gave the magazine information about Starr's investigation. First, she said that she "saw" the transaction. Later, Mann said that her ex-boyfriend told her that. More recently, she says her 13 year old son (maybe) saw something. Mann, as it turns out, is a psychic. She's a professional shopping mall tarot card reader, among other things. She also claims to be able to control the weather, and says she used her extrasensory powers to discover where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. Oh, and she used her powers to direct American forces during the Persian Gulf War too. Just as an aside here: Evidently Mann does not wish to make public wher ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: Lott's Book soon to be released (fwd) Date: 19 Apr 1998 10:35:58 PST On Apr 18, EdgarSuter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws John R. Lott, Jr. University of Chicago Press ISBN: 0226493636 (flap copy:) $23.00 [advance order at a 30 percent discount ($16.10) from Amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com] Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it cause more citizens to harm each other? Wherever people happen to fall along the ideological spectrum, their answers are all too often founded upon mere impressionistic and anecdotal evidence. In this direct challenge to conventional wisdom, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime. In this timely and provocative work he comes to a startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. Lott's sources are broad and inclusive, and his evidence the most extensive yet assembled, taking full account of the FBI's massive yearly crime figures for all 3,054 U.S. counties over eighteen years, the largest national surveys on gun ownership, as well as state police documents on illegal gun use. His unexpected findings reveal that many of the most commonly held assumptions about gun control and its crime-fighting efficacy are simply wrong. Waiting periods, gun buybacks, and background checks yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction. Instead, Lott argues, allowing law-abiding citizens to legal concealed handguns currently represents the most cost-effective methods available for reducing violent crime. In what may be his most controversial conclusion, Lott finds that mass public shootings, such as the infamous examples of the Long Island Railroad by Colin Ferguson or the 1996 Empire State Building shooting, are dramatically reduced once law-abiding citizens in a state are allowed to carry concealed handguns. Lott maintains that criminals generally respond to deterrence: as the risks and potential costs of criminal activity rise, criminals either commit fewer crimes or move on to other areas. The possibility of getting shot by somebody carrying a concealed weapon constitutes a substantial risk, and discourages any sort of physical confrontation. Accordingly, the states now experiencing the largest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest-growing rates of gun ownership. Evidence on accidental gun deaths and suicides is also examined. Thorough and enlightening, More Guns, Less Crime is required reading for anyone interested in the sometimes contentious, always critical American debate over gun control. John R. Lott, Jr. teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. He has published over 70 articles in academic journals. This is his first book. (back cover) "John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares diagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue."-Milton Friedman "Armed with reams of statistics, John Lott has documented many surprising linkages between guns and crime. More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates that what is at stake is not just the right to carry arms but rather our performance in controlling a diverse array of criminal behaviors. Perhaps most disturbing is Lott's documentation of the role of the media and academic commentators in distorting research findings that they regard as politically incorrect."-W. Kip Viscusi, Cogan Professor of Law and director of the Program on Empirical Legal Studies, Harvard Law School "John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws. Regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions, his work is mandatory reading for anyone who is open-minded and serious about the gun control issue. Especially fascinating is his account of the often unscrupulous reactions to his research by gun control advocates, academic critics, and the news media."-Gary Kleck, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University "Until John Lott came along, the standard research paper on firearms and violence consisted of a longitudinal or cross-sectional study on a small and artfully selected data set with few meaningful statistical controls. Lott's work, embracing all of the data that are relevant to his analysis, has created a new standard, which future scholarship in this area, in order to be credible, will have to live up to."-Dan Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law, Northwestern University. "John Lott destroys the politically correct argument that arming law abiding citizens will have a harmful effect on their safety. There is no doubt that criminals prefer to prey upon the unprepared. This book will arm those who read it with the important facts they need in order to decide where they stand on the gun control issue."-Dale Gulbrantson, executive director, Illinois Police Association, Inc. "This book will - or should - cause those who almost reflexively support the limitation of guns in the name of reducing crime to rethink their positions."-Steve Shavell, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - e Jimmy Hoffa rests, so we could not check her accuracy on that. We did, however, contact two military officers who were on the line in the Persian Gulf War. Among the expletives that need not be entered into record, they indicated they were quite certain that they have no knowledge of Mann offering assistance. Anyway, what we have here is another judge with a long history of abuse of power and a press that runs with any damn thing against Starr that pops up, no matter how ridiculous. Put the two together and we get some really stupid news. For example: The media even put Mann on the evening news, numerous times. If Congress would do its duty, and impeach two or three bad judges a year, Judge Wood would have been off of the bench years ago. Instead, Congress allows his ilk to wield continued power over an unsuspecting population having honest business before the courts. LET'S FORCE THE ISSUE It's time to make some noise, folks. Congress has had its two commissions and some hearings. There is no doubt. The United States tax code is all screwed up and the Internal Revenue Service is so far afield of the Constitution that they act like the Gestapo. Good news, though. As it turns out, not even the nation's chief tax writer can figure out the income tax law. As the Washington Times reported in an April 15 editorial: "Bill Archer, the Ways and Means chairman who has always done his own taxes broke down this year and resorted to tax software to prepare his return. It still took him two full days to complete. 'I was amazed,' he told The Washington Post last month. 'Even I didn't realize how complicated the tax code is until I went through that interview process that tax software uses to make sure it has everything set up correctly.' If the man whose committee writes the nation's tax laws finds them complex, it's not hard to imagine how befuddled they leave everyone else." Members of Congress and staff, it should be noted, have their income tax forms prepared free by the IRS. Unlike the way the IRS treats the rest of America, they want to insure that the people on the Hill get every penny that's possible returned to them. Meanwhile, the IRS is using SWAT teams to kick old folks out of their lifelong homes. They are still snooping (violating the Fourth Amendment) on every transaction made by every American citizen. They are still conducting political punishment audits on dozens of groups and citizens throughout the country. They still feel free to "take" anything from any person for any reason without first bothering to take that person to court. And, they still schedule audits on American citizens for no particular reason, other than that they are paid to do audits. No Constitutional protections are available to Americans hounded by the IRS. The IRS is, in fact, a law unto itself; a thing far afield of the American rule of law. Their actions are not just un-Constitutional, they are also un-American. Congress made that and a lot more possible. In fact, wander over to the Alert Global Media web page at: http://www.moneylaundering.com/, and click on the Suspicious Activity page to see just exactly how bad things have become. Alert Global Media lists a whole slew of legal activities that can immediately trigger an investigation by the IRS. Worse, Congress actually passed laws that force banks and businesses to inform the IRS when you are using your own money in certain ways. Then, go check out the federal government's Office of Electronic Technology's web page and see what Al Gore and Hillary have in store for the American public. Find that at: http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtc/smartgov/cards/cards.htm, This is an election year. Every Member of the House and one-third of the Senate is running. They want to stay in office, but we can remove them. Congress created this IRS mess. Congress can uncreate this IRS mess. It is our job to force the issue. So, how about we voters make a deal with those in Congress running for reelection? Here's the deal: Either Congress immediately abolishes the IRS; or, Congress immediately passes a bill forcing the IRS to exactly obey the Bill of Rights as written; or, all of us will work to see that no incumbent is reelected. That is a very simple deal, easily understandable by all. Congress will not have time to put a new taxing system in place this year. They do, however, have plenty of time to pass a bill clearly stating that the IRS must honor the Bill of Rights, and at the same time take away all those silly loophole excuses about civil and administrative law. Thereafter, when an IRS agent wants to snoop in a citizen's private affairs, they will have to first get a warrant describing exactly which records they want and why. And, if they want to take something from an American citizen, the IRS will first have to formally charge that citizen with something and prove wrongdoing to a jury in a court of law. If the Lords and Ladies of The Hill want to keep their cushy jobs, tell them they must first show us voters some action by taking care of this one little matter. They must support our Constitution, and order the IRS honor each section of it as written. Otherwise, adios. ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON GUN RIGHTS There has sure been a lot of hubbub about Second Amendment rights lately. We added a little to the fray too, of course. But we shouldn't have. All we did was to pile misinformation on top of more hackneyed misinformation. In other words, we were (partially) wrong. Here's a quick question for all you Constitutional scholars: Which of the enumerated powers authorized to the federal government are described in the Bill of Rights? None, of course. All powers (except tax and alcohol) given the federal government by the Constitution of the United States are listed in the body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, then, is something else. When we have a doubt of the exact meaning of sections of the Constitution, the Supreme Court instructs that we should look to The Federalist Papers for clarification. In Cohens v. Virginia the Court said: "Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a complete commentary on the Constitution], and the part its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed." Since then, the Federalist Papers have been quoted liberally as an authority in many Court opinions. In The Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton gives his opinion on why a Bill of Rights was not really needed: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Indeed. Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? And, there is no power to regulate private firearms. Yet, many people wanted this declaration of rights added to the Constitution. The promise to do so was made so as to get the Constitution ratified. And the rest is history. It is also enlightening to read what the Representative from Virginia, James Madison, said to the first House of Representatives as he proposed the Bill of Rights. Here is part of that speech: "It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government." Got that? "The people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest." Later, he says that, "all [powers] that are not granted by the constitution are retained" by the people. If the federal government had the power to regulate personal firearms, it would be one of the powers listed in the body of the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights. And, since there is no such power granted, the right to keep and bear arms completely and unequivocally belongs to the people. Personal arms may, however, be regulated by State government. The Second Amendment, then, is no more than a declaration that that people already have the right to keep and bear arms. So, what would the Founding Fathers say about the abuse of power by the federal government to grab guns? Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea in The Federalist No. 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." One other little point: State governments gave up a few powers when the country was formed. But, the American people did not give up any of their rights. Were the people asked to sacrifice liberty, the Constitution would never have been ratified. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: your mail Date: 19 Apr 1998 10:34:44 PST Charles; I've seen these things before, and though it could be a bit more brief, it does seem a good one. However, it does need some changes and that's in the body of it, and the tactics of usage as well. First, this needs to be done in Caucus, when they come around looking for monetary and other support. Second, it needs to be written up as a Contract, not a Unilateral Agreement, between you and your Caucus Members, and Politician(X); I.e., an agreement between several people, with money exchanged for Legal Purpose(Y). You and your fellow Caucus Members are then Party to and Witnesses of, the Contract. Third, it needs some _Teeth_; THe following provisions or something similar need to be added: 1. Politician(X) agrees to vacate Office _immediately_ upon Legal Notice that he/she is in Violation Of Contract. Have said Notice printed up in the Legal Notices section of a couple of local fishwrappers, and send Politician(X) copies with the pertinent parts circled in red if he/she Violates the Contract. Keep a bunch of Copies for numerous Court Proceedings. 2. Politician(X) agrees to return the monetary amount tenfold if he/she is found to be in Violation of Contract. Don't expect to see it right away, but this means you can slap a lien on his/her Real Property, and vehicles etc., and maybe have them eventually confiscated/or sold out from under him/her for Non-Payment. 3. Full payment is due within 30 days of Legal Notice. That way, if they don't Vacate Office or pay up, you not only have some Political ammo to use against them, you can Legally call the a Crook/Oath Breaker/Traitor etc., as well. Think of the Attack Ads.....:-) The French have one thing over us, in that they recently allowed a Politician to be sued, (from Office if memory serves), for breaking his Campaign Promises. With the above style Contract, we could do at least the same.....:-) On Apr 18, Charles R. Norgaard wrote: > The following information appeared in the Lawyers Second Amendment >Society magazine, I thought it was relevent to our times. It was submitted >by Daniel J. Schultz founder of The Liberty Pole, 18034 Ventura Blvd., >No.329, Encino, Calif. Tele. Ph. # 818-734-3066. This needs the widest >possible circulation that is available. >The pre-oath is not a panacea; you must also get to know your candidates on >a personal level to gauge their character; but if a candidate will not sign >the Pre-oath, you will have strong evidence that he does not take his oath >of office seriously. If a candidate does sign it, not only will you have >some indication that the candidate takes his constitutional duties >seriously, but you will have something in writing to use against them in the >next election if they are elected, and have not lived up to their solemn >oath to support and defend the constitution. Here is the Pre-Oath: >Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America. >"I am a candidate for an elective office under the Constitution of the >United States of America. I know that if I am elected, before taking >office, Article VI requires that I shall take an Oath to support the >Constitution. I subscribe to the following beliefs and today take the >following Oath: The right of the prople to keep and bear >arms, individually and collectively, organized and unorganized, is an >inalienable natural right, and the free exercise and enyoyment of this right >is guarenteed and protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of >the United States of American from all infringments. >The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, >written by the Founders of the Federal Republic , is a confirmation that the >right of the people to keep and bear arms is an inherent natural right. >The Second Amendment confirms that liberty must be kept forever fortified;, >that a disarmed populace is ruinous to the security of a free state; and >that the individual has an inalienable natural right to self-defense in >order to protect person, family, home, and property. >The second Amendment is an unceasing restraint against governmental >interference with the natural rights to which it refers, and it forbids any >curtailment or infringment of those rights. >The reasoning and discourses made on the Second Amendment's behalf, by the >authors of the amendment, shall be the basis for the clarification and >proper interpretation of this guaranteed natural right of the people of this >State, and of the other States under the Constitution of the United States >of America, to keep and bear arms. >If elected, after taking the Oath of office required by Article VI of the >Constitution of the United States of America, I shall never vote for >legislation that prohibits the private ownership of arms or ammunition, or >confiscates the peoples privately owned arms or ammunition; nor take any >action, directly or indirectly , which would restrict or deny the guaranteed >natural right of the people to purchase, own, possess, sell, lease, loan, >manufacture, transport or use arms and ammunition for the purpose of defense >of person, family, home or property, regardless of any condition that may >exist, including a declaration of >State or national emergency. >I believe that the elected representatives of the people are charged, by the >oath to support the Constitution required by Article VI of the Constitution >of the United States of America, with the duty and responsibility to protect >the inalienable natural arms rights of the people so that the right of >self-defense, defense of family, home, and property, defense of a free >state, and recreational use of arms,including the sport of hunting, shall be >preserved. Now get to it!!! >Who was it that said something like " The tree of liberty must occasionally >be watered by the blood of tyrants, traiters, and patriots for liberty and >freedom, real freedom to prevail. I am going to ask every politician that >I know, and a few I dont, to sign the above pledge, and if they wont, I will >work hard to see that they do not succeed in the political arena. >Chuck.N. 24 Inf Div. Korean Police Action -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner <skipl@pacifier.com> Subject: Re: Your mail Date: 19 Apr 1998 12:01:08 -0700 Charles R. Norgaard wrote: I am going to ask every politician that > I know, and a few I dont, to sign the above pledge, and if they wont, I will > work hard to see that they do not succeed in the political arena. Chuck, Your pre-pledge is pretty strong medicine for politicians. I don't disagree with it, but if I was running for office, I'd have to think long and hard before signing up, knowing that by doing so I would capture the vote of the RKBA minority, but at the same time I might be foregoing the votes of a lot of the more moderate citizens whose votes I MUST HAVE to get elected. As an elected politician, I can support 2nd amendment rights quietly or loudly, either way without formally signing your pre-pledge. But if I take a zealot's stand and don't get elected, it doesn't make the slightest difference whether I support RKBA or not, does it? The voters these days don't appear to want zealots. They are afraid of them. They want moderates with mouths full of mush, so if you want to get elected, you've got to speak softly and moderately and keep your zealotry under wraps. As you press forward with this project, I have a bit of tactical advice. If you're going to actively oppose everyone who won't sign, you inherently take on the obligation to put the pre-pledge to EVERY politician up for election, not just the ones who will give you the time to argue your case. Otherwise, you'll be opposing only the candidates who WILL give you the time, but won't sign the pre- pledge. By opposing them, you'll be helping the SOBs who WON'T give you any of their time, and whose RKBA position you won't know. Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Your mail Date: 19 Apr 1998 17:32:13 PST On Apr 19, Skip Leuschner wrote: >Charles R. Norgaard wrote: > > I am going to ask every politician that >> I know, and a few I dont, to sign the above pledge, and if they wont, I will >> work hard to see that they do not succeed in the political arena. > >Chuck, Your pre-pledge is pretty strong medicine for politicians. >I don't disagree with it, but if I was running for office, I'd have >to think long and hard before signing up, knowing that by doing so >I would capture the vote of the RKBA minority, but at the same time >I might be foregoing the votes of a lot of the more moderate >citizens whose votes I MUST HAVE to get elected. > >As an elected politician, I can support 2nd amendment rights quietly >or loudly, either way without formally signing your pre-pledge. But >if I take a zealot's stand and don't get elected, it doesn't make the >slightest difference whether I support RKBA or not, does it? The >voters these days don't appear to want zealots. They are afraid >of them. They want moderates with mouths full of mush, so if >you want to get elected, you've got to speak softly and moderately >and keep your zealotry under wraps. > >As you press forward with this project, I have a bit of tactical >advice. If you're going to actively oppose everyone who won't >sign, you inherently take on the obligation to put the pre-pledge to >EVERY politician up for election, not just the ones who will give >you the time to argue your case. Otherwise, you'll be opposing only >the candidates who WILL give you the time, but won't sign the pre- >pledge. By opposing them, you'll be helping the SOBs who WON'T >give you any of their time, and whose RKBA position you won't know. > >Skip. I disagree. The Pledge whether implemented as a Unilateral or a Std. Contract, says nothing about advertizing it before the Election. If they wish to, fine, but it's not a requirement. If implemented properly, (at the Caucuses), the Critters are coming to you with their hand out for help and money. If they won't sign, they won't get it. If the do sign, then they get the bucks and support. Without the bucks and support, they can't get Re-/Elected; It's as simple as that. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Navy ships being shredded (fwd) Date: 20 Apr 1998 08:11:28 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by k5cnf1@juno.com (Richard B Morrow) I thought that you might like to know that a retired Naval CPO told me that he has seen a lot of our destroyers and other ships like medium cruisers being cut up at a marine wrecking yard in Brownsville, Texas. I have been to the place years ago and can confirm that it is there. He saw two destroyers being cut up in the last two weeks and said that other Navy personel have told him of carriers being towed off to India and Pakistan, for the same purposes. This is because the larger ships would be noticable here and questions would be asked, which no one wants to answer. LIke WHY???? The ships were not old wecks but of fairly recent design. Also I am sure that all of you have heard that CLinton is going to allow missle guidance systems to be sold to the Red Chinese, who have nukes and can get Russian ICBMs by using LOTs of money. We are in deep Trouble. R _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Americans losing engineering jobs to NAFTA visa workers Date: 20 Apr 1998 09:41:05 -0500 (CDT) U.S. workers find foreigners filling tech jobs Fairness of visa rules scrutinized 04/19/98 By Jayne Noble Suhler and Ed Timms / The Dallas Morning News For the nation's high-tech industry, foreign workers are the answer to a critical shortage of skilled high-tech labor. But as industry leaders lobby Congress to increase the number of noncitizens granted work visas, critics charge that U.S. corporations are depressing the job market with cheap foreign labor. They say the noncitizens are being treated as indentured servants and are displacing U.S. workers. The U.S. Department of Labor is seeking changes to address what it sees as fundamental flaws in the visa program. "There's no way to explain to people how it is that U.S. employers can reach out to India or Bangladesh or China or any other foreign country without even trying to find a U.S. worker to fill the job," said John Fraser, acting administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division. "And there's absolutely no way to explain to people why a U.S. employer can fire or lay off U.S. workers and replace them with foreign workers. That's just ill-conceived public policy." Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would raise the annual cap on the "H1-B" work visas from 65,000 to 95,000 in 1998 and up to 105,000 until 2002. The House immigration subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, is scheduled to hold hearings on the issue this week. In testimony and in a lobbying blitz, industry groups say that to stay competitive in the world market, they need more highly skilled workers - and that there aren't enough qualified U.S. citizens to go around. Industry leaders point out that the H1-B visa holders represent only a fraction of the millions of high-tech workers in the United States. "Clearly we're an industry that's been growing rapidly, and we're an industry that is driving the U.S. economy," said Michaela Platzer, vice president of the American Electronics Association, an industry advocacy group. "As American companies move forward, you've got to be able to retain the best and the brightest. You've really got to get the top 10 percent - no matter where they're located." Government officials predict that all 65,000 H1-B visas for 1998 will be granted by the end of May, well before the end of the fiscal year. Nearly 45 percent of the visas go to workers in computer-related fields, including programmers and engineers. At the same time, analysts say that the industry is slowing and that several major companies have announced layoffs in recent months. War of words Debate over the H1-B visa program has pitted rock-ribbed Republicans and free-for-all Libertarians against labor-friendly Democrats and U.S. workers. A reported shortage of high-tech workers is being supported - and disputed - with contradictory statistics and projections. Even the terminology is open to interpretation: those who hold H1-B work visas are described in government documents as "temporary" foreign workers. In fact, many already have spent years in the United States on university campuses, where U.S. tax dollars have helped finance their education. Almost half become permanent residents. As the law now stands, potential employers seeking a "labor certification" for a foreign worker submit a one-page application to the Labor Department. Employers must attest that the worker will receive the prevailing wage and benefits for the job and that other similarly employed workers won't be adversely affected. They must state that an opening is not the result of a strike or a walkout, and that current employees have been told that a foreign worker is being sought. The department also wants companies to attest that they have sought U.S. workers before bringing in a foreign worker and that they have not laid off U.S. workers to create the openings. Employers do not identify job candidates, and most fax in the applications. The Labor Department must act within seven days, unless the document is incomplete or contains obvious inaccuracies. "So even if you have information or a lead or an allegation that the employer wasn't doing or wasn't going to do what it said, you can't reject an application on that basis," said Mr. Fraser. After the certification is granted, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is petitioned for the visa. The INS determines whether the worker meets the minimum qualifications - a bachelor's degree or equivalent work experience - and other general requirements for entry. 'In a double bind' Despite wage and benefit requirements, almost one in five foreign workers was being paid less than the wage their employers had indicated, according to a recent survey by the Labor Department's inspector general. But department officials say they receive few complaints. They say that might be because employers sponsor the visas and foreign workers fear they will be sent home if they complain. "They're kind of in a double bind," Mr. Fraser said. "On the one hand, they're dependent on their employer to stay and work in the United States as a non-immigrant, and secondly, they're dependent on the employer to take action on their behalf to sponsor them for permanent status - and those are powerful incentives for them not to complain." Shree, a 28-year-old engineer from India who asked that his full name not be used, said that for two years he had been reluctant to complain to his employer about benefits and went without a raise. After he recently mentioned that he was about to receive permanent residency, his employer immediately wanted to discuss a raise. Since the H1-B program began in the early 1990s, the Labor Department has received about 300 complaints. In 91 cases, investigators concluded that companies owed almost $2.3 million in back wages and assessed about $215,000 in penalties. "But that's not a lot of money for very profitable industries, especially if one in five aren't paying what they've promised to pay, the chances of getting caught are very small," Mr. Fraser said. "It's hardly a slap on the wrist." But industry representatives suggest that the relatively low number of complaints indicates that U.S. companies aren't abusing the program. "You have a marketplace that's probably going to be the best watchdog on this," said Bob Cohen, spokesman for the Information Technology Association, an industry advocacy group. "Our members have no interest in having their competitive edge low-balled or subverted by a company that comes in and undercuts the marketplace." Some high-tech workers - and groups that represent them - argue that foreign workers help keep salaries low and make older job candidates with higher salary demands virtually unemployable. "What they [industry] are really saying is they don't have enough cheap scientists," said Gene Nelson, 46, a biophysicist who has been laid off from several high-tech jobs and currently works for a Dallas-area cellular telephone company answering technical questions. A matter of skills Dr. Nelson, who has a doctorate in biophysics from the State University of New York at Buffalo, believes that employers don't hire him because his resume does not show the most current programming experience. "What employers want is a person who has just the skills they are looking for and no more," said Dr. Nelson, who estimates that it would take him about two weeks to learn a new programming language. Often, companies want candidates who don't need training, and the H1-B visa program was created in order to fill highly specialized positions, Mr. Cohen said. "You take your ... candidates with the greatest likelihood of success, and in our particular industry that means a certain combination of education, experience and skill," he said. Employers say that when recruiting at universities, they often find the best job candidates are foreign students. "There are plenty of people coming out of American universities with degrees; unfortunately, too few of them are American citizens," said Allen Kay, a spokesman for Mr. Smith. He said the San Antonio congressman plans to introduce legislation in the House to increase the cap on the H1-B visas, although he has not decided by how much. When Simon J. Fang received his doctorate in material science from Stanford University a few years ago, he had several job offers. The Taiwanese citizen chose a position with Dallas' Texas Instruments. Dr. Fang, 30, said he did not worry about exchanging a student visa for a work visa and said he plans to seek a green card in about two years. Exaggerated claims? Many high-tech experts say the argument that companies need workers with highly specialized skills is overstated. They note that many high-tech workers don't have degrees in the field in which they're working. They run the gamut from anthropology majors to college dropouts. "What many of us are finding is that the people coming over are not significantly more technically skilled than anybody in the United States and they're not typically doing work that is breakthrough or new," said Paul Kostek, president-elect of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-U.S.A. "They're off doing grunt jobs that any kid with a B.S. degree in computer science from a U.S. school could do." In fact, Labor Department officials say that "job contractors" or "job shops" appear to be the most frequent users of H1-B workers in the high-tech fields. The job contractors, which provide temporary workers, are popular among companies who need extra workers for short-term projects or who want to limit their personnel overhead. Some of these companies, Mr. Fraser said, are staffed almost entirely by foreign workers. Whether working as interns after completing a college education on a student visa, or as an H1-B worker, foreign workers affect the U.S. workforce, Labor Department officials say. A job is "effectively occupied from the student intern days through permanent immigration status," said Raymond Uhalde, the labor department's acting assistant secretary for employment and training. Often companies will sponsor foreign employees with H1-B visas for permanent residency - but under the law they are supposed to first conduct an exhaustive search for a U.S. citizen to fill the job. The process, however, was described in a 1996 Labor Department inspector general report as "perfunctory at best and a sham at worst." Critics also say that even if foreign workers are brought in at the prevailing wage for their occupation, over time they depress salaries. "There is a certain truth in that. ... An American employee faces that fact that an immigrant worker with the same qualifications is willing to work for less pay," said Shree, the engineer from India. Critics say they expect the industry will just keep coming back for more and more foreign workers. "The whole thing boils down to dollars ..." said Bill Reed, president of the American Engineering Association. "Foreign workers have become the drug of choice for industry and academia. They're addicted and they're not going to stop until they can pick and choose from anyone in the world." 1998 The Dallas Morning News - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: waco (fwd) Date: 20 Apr 1998 13:13:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Sunday April 19 2:06 PM EDT Waco tragedy marks 5th anniversary WACO, Texas, April 19 (UPI) _ Five years ago the 51-day federal siege of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco came to a fiery end that killed more than 80 people. Survivors of the Branch Davidian stand-off won a court decision to hold a memorial service on the site of the burned-out compound once led by David Koresh. Timothy McVeigh, who went to observe the siege, was later convicted of using a truck bomb to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City in a retaliation attack. The blast killed 168 people in a retaliation attack. McVeigh's Army buddy, Terry Nichols, awaits sentencing after his conviction as an accomplice. Memorial services are being held today, with speeches as visitors from across the country stroll among trees planted on the site of the burned compound and reading markers put down by a militia group. Doug Mitchell, a member of the Branch Davidians long before Koresh took over the group, lost his bid to win a temporary restraining order to prohibit the ceremony at the site at Mt. Carmel 16 miles outside Waco. Mitchell sued over ownership of the property, seeking its return to original Branch Davidian membership. He said Koresh and his flock were no more than splinter faction, with no real standing in the main body of Branch Davidians. Four agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and two Davidians were killed in the initial raid on Feb. 28, 1993. The fire broke out nearly two months later as the FBI injected tear gas into the compound, attempting to end the siege. Both the ATF and the FBI have been criticized for their handling of the siege. _- Copyright 1998 by United Press International. All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Waco, Washington Post (fwd) Date: 20 Apr 1998 14:34:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters Monday, April 20, 1998; Page A04 WACO, Tex., April 19=97Bells rang in Oklahoma City and Waco today to mark the anniversaries of two different, but intertwined tragedies.=20 In Oklahoma City, 400 people shook small brass bells to break 168 seconds of silence, one second for each person killed when a massive truck bomb blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. In Waco, a replica of the Liberty Bell was rung after the reading of the names of the 80 or so people who died on April 19, 1993, when the Branch Davidian compound went up in flames during an FBI raid.=20 The similarities stopped at bells. Speakers in Oklahoma City lashed out at enemies of the government, while in Waco, they said the government was the enemy.=20 Actor Gerald McRaney told the Oklahoma City mourners who gathered at the bomb site that former Army buddies Timothy J. McVeigh and Terry L.=20 Nichols plotted and pulled off the bombing in an unsuccessful attempt to divide the nation.=20 "We can say to that enemy, 'We will meet your cowardice with courage, we will counter your evil with good, we will resist your terror with faith, we will defeat your hatred with love and we will see justice done,' " said McRaney, who was in town for the filming of his CBS television series, "The Promised Land." Prosecutors said McVeigh and Nichols, both convicted in the bombing, acted because of their anger at the government's actions at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco. McVeigh was sentenced to death. Nichols has not yet been sentenced.=20 President Clinton, who is in Chile, said in a statement that the Oklahoma City bombing was "worst act of terrorism in our country's history. Today, once again our thoughts are with the families of the 168 people whose lives were tragically lost."=20 The Branch Davidians, a religious cult led by David Koresh, died after a 51-day siege by government agents who, in pursuit of a weapons cache, first tried to storm the compound on Feb. 28, 1993, then again on April 19. The latter raid touched off the fatal fire.=20 Former attorney general Ramsey Clark, speaking to about 200 people at the charred ruins of the Koresh compound, called the government action "a violent military assault on a church." "It is essential to all of us that this sacred ground be consecrated for all humanity to know what happened here," Clark said.=20 Clark spoke from the porch of a small cottage housing a new museum put up by Waco survivor Clive Doyle. Inside were depictions of the event, photographs of the dead and artifacts such as charred spoons from inside the compound.=20 "I love [this museum] as a symbol of the day that must not be too far distant when a cathedra rises on that [nearby] hill, when it will be the god-given right of every human being to pray and perform her religion as she believes," Clark said.=20 His words were met with cheers, in contrast to the somber mood in Oklahoma City where those attending the downtown service wept and prayed and reached their hands toward the heavens while the names of the 168 bombing victims were read.=20 For Janney Coverdale, whose two grandsons died in the bombing, three years of mourning were becoming too much to endure.=20 "This might be my last one [anniversary service]. I can't stand too many more of these mass funerals. And that's what it's like, having a mass funeral," she said.=20 =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Dummies (fwd) Date: 20 Apr 1998 12:19:22 PST On Apr 20, Teresa wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Can you believe there are people out there this dumb! Kind of scary! ---------- Further proof that they really are everywhere!! Will the Real Dummy Please Stand Up?! AT&T fired President John Walter after nine months, saying he lacked "intellectual leadership". He received a $26 million severance package. Perhaps it's not Walter who's lacking intelligence... ...With a Little Help from Our Friends! Police in Oakland, California spent two hours attempting to subdue a gunman who had barricaded himself inside his home. After firing ten tear gas canisters, officers discovered that the man was standing beside them, shouting pleas to come out and give himself up... And What Was Plan B? An Illinois man pretending to have a gun kidnapped a motorist and forced him to drive to two different automated teller machines. The kidnapper then proceeded to withdraw money from his own bank accounts... ...And These Nitwits Are Teaching Our Children?!! A 9-year-old boy in Manassas, Virginia received a one-day suspension under his elementary school's drug policy last week - for Certs! Joey Hoeffer allegedly told a classmate that the mints would make him "jump higher." And a student in Belle, West Virginia was suspended for three days for giving a classmate a cough drop. School principal Forest Mann reiterated the school's "zero-tolerance" policy...not to be confused with the "zero-intelligence" policy... Some Days, It Just Doesn't Pay to Gnaw Through the Straps... Fire investigators on Maui have determined the cause of a blaze that destroyed a $127,000 home last month - a short in the homeowner's newly installed fire prevention alarm system. "This is even worse than last year," said the distraught homeowner, "when someone broke in and stole my new security system..." The Getaway... A man walked in to a Topeka, Kansas Kwik Shop, and asked for all the money in the cash drawer. Apparently, the take was too small, so he tied up the store clerk and worked the counter himself for three hours until police showed up and grabbed him. Do-It-Yourself Brain Surgery?! In Alabama, an unidentified man in his late twenties walked into a police station with a 9-inch wire protruding from his forehead and calmly asked officers to give him an X-ray to help him find his brain, which he claimed had been stolen. Police were shocked to learn that the man had drilled a 6-inch deep hole in his skull with a Black & Decker power drill and had stuck the wire in to try and find the missing brain. Have I Got a Deal for You! More than 600 people in Italy wanted to ride in a spaceship badly enough to pay $10,000 a piece for the first tourist flight to Mars. According to the Italian police, the would-be space travelers were told to spend their "next vacation on Mars, amid the splendors of ruined temples and painted deserts. Ride a Martian camel from oasis to oasis and enjoy the incredible Martian sunsets. Explore mysterious canals and marvel at the views. Trips to the moon also available." Authorities believe that the con men running this scam made off with over six million dollars... Did I Say That?! Police in Los Angeles had good luck with a robbery suspect who just couldn't control himself during a lineup. When detectives asked each man in the lineup to repeat the words, "Give me all your money or I'll shoot," the man shouted, "That's not what I said!" Ouch, That Smarts! A bank robber in Virginia Beach got a nasty surprise when a dye pack designed to mark stolen money exploded in his Fruit-of-the-Looms. The robber apparently stuffed the loot down the front of his pants as he was running out the door."He was seen hopping and jumping around," said police spokesman Mike Carey, "with an explosion taking place inside his pants." Police have the man's charred trousers in custody... Are We Not Communicating? A man spoke frantically into the phone: "My wife is pregnant and her contractions are only two minutes apart!" "Is this her first child?" the doctor asked. "No, you idiot!" the man shouted. "This is her husband!" Not the Sharpest Knife in the Drawer! In Modesto, CA, Steven Richard King was arrested for trying to hold up a Bank of America branch without a weapon. King used a thumb and a finger to simulate a gun, but unfortunately, he failed to keep his hand in his pocket. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Now that's ---Ugly (fwd) Date: 20 Apr 1998 13:22:56 PST On Apr 20, Teresa wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Sleeping Beauty, Tom Thumb and Quasimodo were having a terrible fight. > >"I am the most beautiful person in the world," proclaimed Sleeping Beauty. > >"No, you're not," answered Quasimodo and Tom Thumb. > >"I am the smallest person in the world," shouted Tom Thumb. > >"No, you're not," said Sleeping Beauty and Quasimodo." > >"I am the ugliest person in the world," announced Quasimodo. > >"No, you aren't," replied Tom Thumb and Sleeping Beauty. Well, they >decided that if the three were to get along, they needed a mediator, >and decided that Merlin, clearly the smartest person in the world, >would be ideal. Merlin agreed and summoned them all to his palace, >where he announced he would meet with them one at a time. Sleeping >Beauty went in first and not a minute later came out beaming. > >"I am the most beautiful person in the world. Merlin says so." > >In went Tom Thumb and out he came as quickly as had Sleeping Beauty. > >"I am the smallest person in the world. Merlin agrees." > >In goes Quasimodo and he stays a half hour, an hour, an hour and a half. > >Finally, he emerges distraught, muttering,... "Who is Janet Reno?" [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: More on Waco, the story by "Pat" (fwd) Date: 21 Apr 1998 09:06:14 -0500 (CDT) 4-21-97 You know the USA is full of people like us. I was at the same house party Saturday as my earlier story. There was a real estate agent named "Pat" my wife and her office said I had to meet. It turned out Pat had listened to Chuck Harders "for the People" and Ron Englemans talk shows here in Dallas. She started back in 1992 and knew all about the governments abuses and their support of gun control and other anti-freedom laws. A month after the death of the Branch Dividians Pat worked a booth at a charity golf tournament down in Waco. Up walked 2 Waco sheriff deputies. She asked them what they thought about the Branch Davidian thing? The big guy said well, we had to stop him. Pat said you mean you guys had to kill 80 people to stop David? They said no that was the Fed guys. Pat said oh, so in America you don't get a trial by jury anymore?. They got mad and left. But, an hour later they came back. Pat said did you guys take an oath or something for office? They said well yes, to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Pat said can you tell me what the 8th amendment is? They said well, no. Pat said can you tell me what the 6th amendment is? They said well, no. Pat said then how the hell can you defend my rights if you don't even know what it says? They walked away with their their faces lowered in shame. An hour later they came back again. They said she was making them think. Pat said did you have to raid the place or were you boys to chicken to arrest David? The big guy said no, David played in a band every Saturday night in town we could have arrested him anytime we wanted to. Pat said did you know that the Feds had no jurisdiction and you guys are the highest legal authority in the county? She said you could have stopped the Feds at anytime. The big guy said do you remember when David kept asking them to send in officer "so and so" to talk with him? That was me, I was one of David's friends. So even an average American Woman real estate agent knows the Constitution and about the terrible abuses by our government. For me this proves there is still hope. Paul Watson, Dallas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: 1st Amendment in Danger, NOW. (fwd) Date: 21 Apr 1998 11:16:09 PST On Apr 21, Teresa wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Currently circulating the House is a dangerous "discharge petition" led >by Scotty Baesler, KY. This discharge petition, if signed by 218 >Members, would circumvent House leadership and force the House to >consider campaign finance "reform" legislation that seriously threatens >Christian Coalition's/Pro-Lifer's/Pro-Gun's etc. free speech Constitutional rights. > >Attached is a letter sent to the House by Christian Coalition opposing >the discharge petition and the legislation that would follow if the >petition passes. Also, attached is an important target list of House >Members. To avoid this threatening campaign finance legislation, it is >VERY important that this discharge petition NOT gather the 218 >signatures. > >PROTECT FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS -- >OPPOSE THE BAESLER "DISCHARGE PETITION" > >April 17, 1998 > >Dear Representative: > > Currently circulating in the House of Representatives is a "discharge >petition" led by Rep. Scotty Baesler which, if signed by 218 Members, >would force the House to vote on speech-restrictive campaign finance >"reform" bills. Christian Coalition vigorously opposes any legislation >that seeks to restrict our Constitutionally protected right to free >speech. Therefore, we urge you to oppose this discharge petition. > > Efforts have been mounting to place unconstitutional regulations on >groups, such as Christian Coalition, which represent millions of people >who seek to be informed and educated about issues important to them. >Regardless of these outside pressures, Christian Coalition will remain >dedicated to serving people of faith by informing and encouraging them >to be involved in the democratic process. Not only is this our >Constitutionally protected right, but it is also healthy for, and vital >to, the success of our political system. Members of Congress should not >be working to stifle American political discourse through >speech-restrictive campaign finance "reform" legislation. > > If this discharge petition gathers the 218 signatures necessary, it >would force the House to consider speech-restriction legislation such as >the Shays-Meehan bill (H.R. 3526). This egregious bill, equivalent to >the September 1997 version of the Senate's McCain-Feingold bill, would >implement an outright ban on organizations, such as Christian Coalition, >from sponsoring broadcast communications that even mention the name of a >member of Congress or other "candidate" 60 days before a primary or >general election. At any time of the year, educational campaigns which >are viewed by the Federal Elections Commission to be "of value" to a >particular candidate could be considered an illegal campaign >contribution -- even if no "candidate" is mentioned. These forms of >regulations will not withstand constitutional challenge as the Supreme >Court has correctly held only "express advocacy" may be subjected to >government regulation (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976). > > It is because of Christian Coalition's belief in First Amendment free >speech rights and our efforts to increase every American's involvement >in the democratic process that we oppose all efforts to enact >speech-restrictive campaign finance "reform" legislation. We urge you >to stand firm and oppose the Baesler discharge petition. > >Sincerely, > >Christian Coalition > > >The following targets have not yet signed the Baesler discharge >petition. They MUST be contacted and urged to NOT sign. > >**PLEASE URGE THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTATIVES TO NOT SIGN THE CAMPAIGN >FINANCE "REFORM" DISCHARGE PETITION** Thanks and God Bless!! > >REPUBLICANS: >Hutchinson, AL >Salmon, AZ >J.D. Hayworth, AZ >Horn, CA >Bilbray, CA >Foley, FL >Porter, IL >Snowbarger, KS >Gilchrest, MD >Upton, MI >Ramstad, MN >R. Hill, MT >Bereuter, NE >Barrett, NE >Bass, NH >Franks, NJ >Frelinghuysen, NJ >Redmond, NM >Boehlert, NY >Forbes, NY >Kelly, NY >Lazio, NY >Quinn, NY >Houghton, NY >Walsh, NY >English, PA >Fox, PA >Greenwood, PA >Sanford, SC >Graham, SC >Duncan, TN >Brady, TX >T. Davis, VA >White, WA >Neumann, WI > >DEMOCRATS: >Pastor, AZ >Hamilton, IN >Visclosky, IN >Roemer, IN >Oberstar, MN >G. Taylor, MS >Thompson, MS >Traficant, OH >Murtha, PA >Klink, PA >Gonzalez, TX >R. Hall, TX >Boucher, VA >Obey, WI >Mollohan, WV >Rahall, WV [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Clinton sets up Red Communist with ICBM's Date: 21 Apr 1998 16:43:32 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Next year will be a historic moment for China. In 1999, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Mao, the PRC will orbit it's first manned space craft. The US and Russia have dominated space in the last half of the 20th century. Now, a third, rising super-power of the 21st century, will soon join them. In part, the Clinton administration should celebrate as well, for they have played a major role in helping the PRC develop it's missile and manned space program. Technology sold to China helped the Chinese to begin their own bold journey. However, this time it is not for peaceful conquest of space but for brutal domination of the Earth. This time the two space men will be carrying a little red book and they will be members of the People's Liberation Army. US technical contributions to China's rockets of war include guidance and control systems from heavy Clinton/Gore donor Benard Schwartz (LORAL), and satellite secure communications from the "inside the White House" connection through Motorola. The list of aero-space items bought by the PRC for commercial purposes and then "diverted" into their military includes super computers for nuclear weapons research, advanced CAD/CAM aircraft manufacturing machinery, hot section technology for jet engines, and encrypted control systems for satellites. In one case, the advanced CAD/CAM machines, the items were sold to the PRC allegedly to produce civilian "airliners". However, US spy satellites have photos of the US machinery being installed at a People's Army missile/jet fighter production facility. Other items not available for sale were stolen or improved by Chinese intelligence operations. For example, one Chinese operation was discovered by accident in 1996. A Chinese air-to-air missile was found by Singapore officials in the cargo bay of a DRAGONAIR passenger jet bound for Israel. The missile was in a box labeled "machine parts". US intelligence openly speculated in Aviation Week & Space Technology that the missile was to be improved inside Israel with stolen US Sidewinder technology and then sent back to China. DRAGONAIR was fined by Singapore. No word on whether the passengers were offered a refund. Yet, DRAGONAIR, was at that time also part owned by Moctar Riady of the Lippo Group. The same Riady family so closely connected to Bill Clinton. The same Riadys who bought Webb Hubbell's silence, hired John Huang to his secret US Commerce Dept. job and funneled illegal donations to the Clinton via a "gardener". Moctar has since sold his interest in DRAGONAIR to his joint partner in the Chinese airline. The PRC. The Chinese operation to improve aero-space operations has been quite successful. In 1999 China will begin flight testing a whole new generation of space military hardware. The new weapons of space include real-time spy satellites, fully secure world-wide satellite communications and all weather navigation for bombing. These military satellites will join their US and Russian counter parts in orbit. Another more dangerous Chinese weapon is also on track for deployment in the 21st century. This weapon too has it's roots in advanced US technology. Sometime in the first decade of the next century China will begin to deploy mobile ICBMs with multiple nuclear warheads (MIRV). These missiles will be able to roam the vast country-side of China on mobile launch trucks, safe from detection or attack from US air forces. They will also be able to strike up to five targets anywhere on Earth with a new, lightweight, nuclear warhead, designed by the best US super computers that Chinese money can buy. The Chinese operation is a success because there appears to be no reaction from the west. The US media is more concerned about Clinton's sexual problems than the sale of space weapons to a potential enemy. Yet, the ability of Clinton to "spin" the story does not change the situation. The Clinton deals with China are the modern equal of selling nuclear secrets to the USSR in the 1950s. We may face our own weapons in a future battle against an unpopular and tyrannical regime. The future scenario of Beijing dictators creating a war for the "liberation of Taiwan" is very real. The Clinton legacy in the 21st century may be a nuclear "Falklands" for America. The fact that we ignore it today ... Only assures it will come true tomorrow. 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.us.net/softwar softwar@us.net Pcyphered SIGNATURE: DCDB12D956D23B2576AE8C50108EB7D86459090E4104E6CA08DC5F0559093A38 42C19ACCCE7ABA86540F325EACB8B23141B149E3F37EE4D38AF486342335DB5C 2FAB9276BF195EFA ============================================================== SOFTWAR EMAIL NEWSLETTER 04/21/1998 *** to unsubscribe reply with "unsubscribe" as subject *** ============================================================== ========================================================================== 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 ca Most Sinologists don't see this happening. Right now, China is trying to gain hegemony over east Asia and it would be folly to pick a war with the U.S. as we would most likely beat them. If they would attack anyone the best bet would be Taiwan. I just don't see them directly challenging the U.S. until perhaps 2030-2050 and the objective would be total or near-domination of the Pacific Rim. We will see continued efforts to corrupt countries and governments on the Pac Rim east side (that's Alaska all the way down to the bottom of South America) and "flood" them with ethnic Chinese. I truly think with Bill Clinton they were handed exactly what they wanted and more on a silver platter -- his greed for campaign collars in 1995-1996 combined with the Chinese push to acquire post-Gulf War military techology was and is a lethal combination for the continued health of the free republic. - --- Jim - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Oklahoma Rally (fwd) Date: 22 Apr 1998 14:22:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- mlindste@clandjop.com, jeffs@gr.cns.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, Shiloh1@airmail.net, nox2128@montana.com *************************** BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT *************************** WILL FOSTER RALLY I looked over at Meg Foster and saw she was shivering. The rain was coming down hard enough to give me flashbacks from the rain forests of Southeast Asia. Norma Sapp from NORML got Meg to go inside and sit on the marble steps. Then, the producer of "Nature of Things" from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recorded the longest thunder-clap I ever heard, right in the middle of our interview. I looked into the camera and told it, "that was 'GOD' telling them upstairs, no more bills of attainder." When the sky quieted down, I gave the CBC the chance to tell the world what a bill of attainder really is. You will not learn it from our justice system or our press. By 4 p.m. at least 150 people had assembled. We walked into the bottom rotunda, the "belly of the beast," inside the Capitol Building. Under the round empty white marble of the rotunda Mike Pearson introduced the speakers. I looked several floors up to empty round balconies. Meg Foster spoke after Mike, then Adam Smith from the Drug Reform Coordination Network was giving his speech when the police moved in . The young man looked into the officer's eyes and said, "If you take my sign I want you to show it to the camera." Violations of the First Amendment rang out. Channel 9 and others along with several documentary crews were there, so the kid had cameras. The cop backed off to find others of his species. A resounding "Booohhhh" went up the marble hole. Feeling the decibel power of the protesters I decided it was time to "let the bull out of the shoot." It looked like a round-up to me. It was time to learn what a bill of attainder is. I stepped out after Mike Pearson introduced me and asked the crowd, "Do you believe the law should be used to plunder life, liberty, or property?" I felt the "NO" vibrate up the marble hole all the way to the ceiling. I looked upstairs and was happy to see those folks gathering up there were learning that in Oklahoma the legislature has three constitutional provisions to protect citizens from laws that outlaw people, suspend their civil rights, confiscate their property, punish or put them to death without a trial. The white marble vibrated truth through the Oklahoma Congress at least once before the next century. I could feel the crowd and they were fired up. It felt good. When I got done Channel 9 was there asking me for my card. Later we waited to see if they put us on the news. It looks like Canada will be telling Americans the truth about their rights and Will Foster. After the rally most of the speakers assembled at the Clarion to shoot interviews for another documentary. It's in the can. We would like you to contact the CBC, and ask them to promote their documentary also. They can be reached at P.O. Box 500, Station "A", Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M5W 1E6. (Fax) (416) 205- 3579. We do not know when their production will be ready but we look forward to seeing it. If they put in the thunder you'll hear what I mean. We hope it will help free Will Foster. Tom Saunders Bill Of Attainder Project http://www.isc-durant.com/tom/billofattainder - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: sent from Eudora (fwd) Date: 22 Apr 1998 14:23:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- wrote : >Any way you can keep this from Wrapping lines? I am not sure. I think the original message was formatted with wide lines Sometimes I can manually reformat by pushing the type around......but=20 sometimes when I do that EUDORA its arrogance adjusts the lines for window I have open when I put the text in there to mail WORD will do a nice job of formatting but it thinks each carriage return starts a new paragraph and so it comes out double spaced I pulled this down from the www site and shifted all the type around by hand and will send it twice. I think the old mailer will leave the formatting alone but does not understand MIME while Eudora understands MIME but is apt to louse up the formatting Jack =20 Wednesday, April 22, 1998=20 Historian serves notice=20 on Gingrich=20 He hired her, fired her and now=20 she wants to fire him=20 By Paul Chesser =A9 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 Christina Jeffrey, a Kennesaw State University professor of=20 political science, directs students through her Internet web=20 site to her special "warning" page. Upon arrival, the new=20 students discover a photograph of a menacing Rep. James Traficant, D-OH, wielding a 2x4 labeled "Bangin' away in D.C."=20 The warning to students is to "keep up with the readings."=20 Jeffrey's threat is that if assigned readings are not kept up,=20 she "will be forced to call (Traficant) and have him give you=20 a call." Considering Traficant's surly mug, students are probably wise to heed Jeffrey's admonishment.=20 Jeffrey is now also serving a stern warning to House Speaker=20 Newt Gingrich.=20 Best known as the House historian that Gingrich hired and then=20 fired a few days later, Jeffrey is filing a lawsuit today to=20 allow her to run for the speaker's House seat in the 6th District=20 of Georgia. The lawsuit seeks to overturn a University System of=20 Georgia rule that prohibits professors from running for state=20 or federal office. The suit will be filed in U.S. District=20 Court in Atlanta.=20 Jeffrey became a point of controversy in January 1995 when=20 Gingrich hired her to serve as Historian of the House of=20 Representatives. She was fired by Gingrich days later, because=20 of accusations that she made anti-Semitic remarks in reviewing a Holocaust course for the Department of Education.=20 Jeffrey wrote in her review that "the program gives no evidence=20 of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view, however=20 unpopular ... is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan."=20 In a March 1995 letter to the Wall Street Journal explaining her=20 review, Jeffrey wrote, "my review, of course, presupposed the=20 existence and evil of the Holocaust, an assumption universal in=20 academic discourse." She further explained that "the DOE form=20 specified criteria that were narrow and superficial and ...=20 included balance as a major criterion; I was not thinking of=20 fairness to Nazis but of the absence of an intellectual foundation=20 to support goodness and virtue."=20 Jeffrey was subsequently supported and defended by several=20 prominent Jews, including Abraham Foxman, national director of=20 the Anti-Defamation League. Jeffrey also has a lawsuit pending=20 against Gingrich for breach of contract, because of his promise=20 of employment for her after her firing. She plans to appeal the dismissal of another lawsuit, claiming defamation and slander=20 by some House Democrats.=20 According to Jeffrey, the motivation behind her effort to run for=20 the House is purely ideological.=20 "We (her and her husband, Robert) really don't believe in=20 vengeance," said Jeffrey. "We think that if we acted out of that=20 motive, it would do us more harm than it would anybody else. We=20 believe that are hearts are pure and in the right place, and have=20 the best interests of the people of the 6th District at heart."=20 "The kind of disappointment that would lead to (her candidacy)=20 is not personal. It is profound political and civic disappointment.=20 Robert and I feel like we're orphans of the revolution, and we're=20 not the only ones."=20 In her personal survey of the residents of the 6th District,=20 Jeffrey has found "great unhappiness" with Gingrich.=20 "Imagine what it was like in the 6th District in November of=20 1994," said Jeffrey. "He recruited us for a revolution. Then=20 when he got there, he forgot to fight. The dissatisfaction=20 with Newt is very deep."=20 Jeffrey's opinion of Gingrich's job performance has changed in the=20 last three years. In a September 1995 interview for The Refuter,=20 an online newsletter, Jeffrey expressed support for the speaker,=20 despite her firing.=20 "Newt is my congressman. I still expect him to lead this Second American Revolution and I support his efforts."=20 Today Jeffrey says "we were strong Newt supporters. We made a=20 determination to stay in the Newt camp, and support what we=20 thought was a revolution, and not let our personal differences=20 get in the way."=20 Now that she perceives the speaker has changed, Jeffrey believes=20 it is time for her to become involved. "Newt is, and has been,=20 obviously moving to the left to satisfy what he thinks he needs=20 to do to be president," she said.=20 "We really haven't gotten much in the way of an explanation,=20 for why all the things we worked and prayed for now aren't=20 important, and now are impossible. We simply don't see it."=20 Jeffrey hesitates to describe her own politics. She doesn't=20 like the labels.=20 "One label that's been given to me, and I'm still a little=20 uneasy with it, but it's not inaccurate, is a Judeo-Christian=20 libertarian." While not a member of the Libertarian Party, she's=20 a believer in personal liberties.=20 Perhaps the issue that concerns Jeffrey most is, not surprisingly,=20 education.=20 "I think it should be up to the parents in the most narrow sense.=20 I think even a large school is a mistake for young children.=20 The parent of one child in a school with 1700 children has too=20 little influence over her child's education. It needs to be small enough so the parents have an impact."=20 Despite her lifelong status as a Republican, Jeffrey hasn't=20 decided whether she would run as a Democrat or Republican.=20 "One thing political scientists tend to have in common is we=20 like political parties," she said. "We like for them to mean=20 something, because they're important cues for the voters, who=20 spend all their time working, and don't have time to follow the=20 issues, but are conscientious and want to vote."=20 "These parties, and their leaders who want to be president,=20 are going to move to the center, and when they do that, the=20 parties are going to be confused. Maybe that's not such a bad=20 thing. For people like me who have strong political views, maybe I need allies in both parties, so that a bipartisan=20 effort can be made, for example, to shut down the NEA. Maybe=20 as long as it's just a Republican effort, it's not going to happen."=20 Jeffrey is optimistic about her chances in getting the=20 university rule overturned.=20 "It looks to me like an unconstitutional rule," she said.=20 "How can the state of Georgia get away with taking a whole=20 class of people and say they can't run for federal office?"=20 "If you want people who understand how the political system=20 works, from a theoretical standpoint, then it's good to have=20 a few (professors) around. I think a professor's place is in the House."=20 Even her potential primary opponent agreed.=20 "The last thing Newt Gingrich said to Robert and me when we were in Washington ... was that he thought 'Washington needed some=20 feisty professors."=20 "But apparently he changed his mind -- for political expediency.=20 He didn't want that smear machine coming after him."=20 Send e-mail to the editor=20 Go to the exclusives archive=20 Go to the front page of=20 =20 =A91998, Western Journalism Center=20 =20 Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: BATF goes far beyond the law with new Brady regs (fwd) Date: 22 Apr 1998 21:41:04 PST On Apr 22, ataylor@NMSU.Edu () wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Neal Knox alert on the latest power-grab by BATF. Why has the "winning team" at NRA not bothered to tell members a single, darned thing about this latest outrage? ========================================================================== BATF's Brady Regs Stretch New Powers BATF's proposed regulations on the permanent "Instant Check" provisions of the Brady Act, which go into effect Nov. 30 on all firearms purchases -- including rifles and shotguns -- would further stretch the Federal powers granted by that law. FBI spokesmen have estimated the cost of check will be about $15 per transaction -- on over 10 million transactions. Public comments will be accepted until May 20. Despite prohibitions against Social Security numbers being used for identification, the proposed regulations would request a buyer's SSN as an "option," supposedly to prevent delay in transfers due to misidentification of the buyer. "Instant Check" was initiated and promoted by NRA as a less- restrictive alternative to the Brady 7-day waiting period, with safeguards against records of gun buyers being permanently kept, but the proposed regulations sidestep any discussion of records security or privacy, stating that will come in the Justice Department's regulations. The Justice Department, unlike BATF, is not prohibited from spending its funds to create a national gun registry. Though the law prohibits maintaining computer records on guns and buyers, Justice Department in 1996 established and sent the "F.I.S.T." (Firearms Inquiry Statistical Tracking) Windows-based computer program to several hundred police departments, encouraging them to maintain records accessible by Federal agencies. Some local and state agencies, such as the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification, have been caught maintaining computerized records of Brady purchases despite the clear prohibition in the law. No prosecutions have resulted. The "Instant Check" (which replaces the five-working day wait, but can take up to three working days) supposedly was to be carried out by States which had adopted such purchase requirements, with the Federal government to conduct checks only if state systems were inadequate or the state had not implemented the system. NRA-ILA has actively supported passage of state "Instant Check" laws -- often despite the opposition of local gunowners. But the proposed regulations require all purchases to be cleared through the Justice Department National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Accordingly, buyers in states with their own checking systems would be required to comply with both, and pay both fees -- perhaps totaling $30 on a $50 .22 rifle. NRA apparently has not alerted its members to the regulations though almost half of the 90-day comment period has expired. States with purchase permit systems are supposedly exempted from the "Instant Check," but the proposed BATF regulations refuse to recognize such permits unless issued after a recent NICS background check. Congress specifically exempted return of a person's pawned firearm from the waiting period under the first phase of Brady, but BATF is taking the position that a NICS check must be conducted before a pawnbroker may return a gun to its owner under the permanent phase. The proposed regulations state that BATF is proposing changes in the law to require a NICS check within 30 days of the transfer and to require the check after completion of the Form 4473. It is a certainty that Handgun Control Inc. will attempt to continue the waiting period requirement, and introduce other amendments, if any such piece of firearms legislation is allowed to move in Congress. The proposed regulations, found on Pages 8379-8386 of the Feb. 19 Federal Register, may also be obtained From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19fe98-24]. Send written comments to: Chief, Regulations Division; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; P.O. Box 50221; Washington, DC 20091-0221; ATTN: Notice No. 857. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: GOA alert on BATF's Brady power grab (fwd) Date: 22 Apr 1998 21:42:40 PST On Apr 22, ataylor@NMSU.Edu () wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Huh, GOA got the word out last week. Where's that NRA "winning team" on this, I wonder? Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <goamail@gunowners.org> X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Brady "Instant" Check to Spell Trouble -- Possible three-day wait could cripple gun show sales by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, 703-321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org (Friday, April 17, 1998) Brady Instant Registration Check could take three days; register gun owners The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) issued regulations in February that should concern every gun owner. The regulations involve the implementation of the so-called instant check, which is supposed to go on-line in November of this year. It turns out, however, that the instant check may not be so instant after all. The BATF regulations make it clear that the feds will have "up to three business days" to respond to each background check request. Read that again: "three business days." Following these guidelines, could the feds decide to take the weekends off? If so, that would seriously impact all gun dealer sales at weekend gun shows. Moreover, since weekends are not typically considered business days, the "three business days" can easily impose a five day waiting period for weekend gun sales - or a six day waiting period if there is a holiday on a Friday or Monday. Given the BATF's own verbiage, and given the President's track record regarding his abuse of firearms rights, gun owners should be very concerned about the implications that these regulations carry for gun dealer sales at weekend gun shows. Gun Owners of America has strongly opposed the Instant Registration Check from its inception. Such a check requires a law-abiding citizen to prove his innocence to government officials before exercising a right. Furthermore, GOA has always argued that no matter how many prohibitions are written into the law, the possibility of gun owner registration is always present. BATF wants your Social Security number GOA's concerns were recently validated when the BATF made it clear they want gun dealers to retrieve the Social Security numbers of gun buyers. Providing the feds with the Social Security number of gun owners enhances their ability to compile a national gun registry. (Gun owners should also note that the feds will be conducting background checks on ALL guns - shotguns and rifles included.) It is imperative that your Representative and Senators understand that gun owners do not want their names to be phoned in and entered into a federal bureaucrat's computer. We repeat: honest gun owners should not have to prove their innocence to the government before exercising a constitutional right - any more than a preacher or journalist should have to prove their worthiness before exercising their First Amendment rights. GOA members should have already received the latest GOA newsletter and legislative alert in the mail. While the GOA newsletter (dated April 24, 1998) quotes pertinent passages from the BATF regs, one can also read them in their entirety by going to http://www.gunowners.org/bitb.htm on the GOA website. ACTION: Urge your Representative (1-800-504-0031 or 202-225-3121) to cosponsor Rep. Ron Paul's H.R. 2721 - a bill which would, among other things, repeal the Brady "registration" law in its entirety. GOA has also posted on the Web a sample opposition letter to the BATF. Go to the above mentioned URL and use the sample letter to compose your own - or copy it word for word if you're short on time. But make sure you sound-off to the BATF before May 20 when the comment period ends. (Grassroots heat can have a tremendous effect in getting regulatory agencies to back off their gun control proposals - as we've seen in recent years with the Forest Service, the EPA and the BLM. As for the BATF, go ahead and write them anonymously to protect your privacy.) -- Clip & Fax -- (see http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm for fax numbers or call your Rep. and ask) Dear Representative, The proposed new BATF regulations calling for the use of Social Security numbers as part of the information taken during the purchase of a firearm is a clear invasion of my right to privacy and another step toward national gun registration. Even though Congress has passed laws to prevent a national gun registry, this agency continues to ignore public law, the Constitution and the express will of the Congress. Moreover, the proposed BATF regulations will allow federal bureaucrats up to "three business days" to complete the background checks on gun buyers. This "three day" period could easily be used to cripple gun show sales, and could turn the supposed "instant" check into a three to six day waiting period. The best way to prevent this from infringing upon my rights is by passing H.R. 2721, a bill to repeal the Brady registration law. I urge you to become a sponsor of this important pro-gun legislation. *********************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your state of residence in either the subject line or the body. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Top Five Ways to Tell When the Government Is Corrupt (fwd) Date: 23 Apr 1998 00:13:18 PST On Apr 22, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] (Not a product of Worldwide Pants, Inc.) TOP FIVE WAYS TO TELL WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT 5. Congress passes a Minimum Bribe Law. 4. The inaugural oath ends with "So help me, Godfather." 3. The special prosecutor is warned to wear bulletproof knee pads. (Wait a minute -- this actually happened!) 2. Lawyers in the White House Counsel's Office insist on being referred to as "Da Bawss's consiglieri." ***And the Number One way to tell when the government is corrupt: Furtive Oval Office visits by skulking "bagmen" from McDonald's. ============== Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Newt takes on Clinton and Tobacco big government ploy (fwd) Date: 23 Apr 1998 11:24:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Tobacco bill motives draw Gingrich's ire By Mary Ann Akers THE WASHINGTON TIMES House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Clinton's push for a tobacco bill is motivated not by a desire to save children from smoking-related diseases but by a liberal agenda to raise taxes and create bigger government. For their part, the president and Vice President Al Gore said Mr. Gingrich and other congressional Republicans were simply toeing the line for the tobacco companies and would not dare do anything to hurt their standing with the GOP's biggest political contributors. The partisan sniping was a clear indication that the political war over tobacco is overshadowing serious efforts to get legislation passed this year. "This is not a question of who cares about children or who cares [about] stopping lung disease," Mr. Gingrich said. "This is an issue about whether or not liberals deliberately used a passionate, powerful, emotional issue as an excuse for higher taxes, bigger government and more bureaucracy. "Now, does the president want to stop kids from smoking, or does he want a smokescreen behind which he gets higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy and bigger government?" the Georgia Republican asked. Mr. Gore accused Republicans of doing exactly as they are told by the tobacco industry, suggesting -- Continued from Front Page -- GOP lawmakers abandoned attempts to pass comprehensive tobacco legislation just as soon as cigarette makers balked at the pending deal two weeks ago. "Is it a coincidence that immediately after the tobacco industry executives switched signals, called a new play, and publicly announced their opposition to legislation, that right away the Republican leadership switched their signals, adopted a new play and announced their opposition to legislation?" the vice president asked. "I don't think it's a coincidence." Mr. Gingrich denied that he would allow the tobacco industry to control the Republican agenda and declared he had "as strong an anti-tobacco company position as you've seen in this city." As the two sides swapped accusations, they also recommended significant changes to comprehensive tobacco legislation pending in the Senate. Mr. Clinton suggested ways to strengthen several parts of the bill, while Senate GOP leaders joined House Republicans in pushing for a more narrowly tailored measure aimed at stopping teen smoking and drug use. White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles submitted the president's suggested changes to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who crafted the Senate bill, during a White House meeting attended by a few other top Clinton aides. The president stopped by the meeting but did not linger to discuss his position. Mr. McCain declined to specify the proposed changes but said all were negotiable. White House aides have said the president's main goal is to stiffen the penalties imposed on tobacco companies that fail to meet the bill's target to cut teen smoking by 60 percent over 10 years. Mr. McCain's bill, which would strengthen the agreement reached last June between the tobacco industry and 40 state attorneys general, also has not won the endorsement of the Senate GOP leadership, even though it was approved 19-1 by the Senate Commerce Committee. Senate GOP leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles of Oklahoma both indicated yesterday they would rather push a bill that would attack both teen smoking and drug use, much like the package being discussed by House GOP leaders. "I think we should address teen-age drug abuse as well as teen smoking," Mr. Lott said. Mr. Nickles added, "I personally plan on including an anti-drug component to whatever we do." House leaders have said they will wait to see what kind of tobacco bill the Senate passes before taking action themselves, but they have also made clear they do not favor the Senate bill. One issue in dispute is the Senate bill's proposed $1.10 per-pack tax increase on cigarettes. Mr. Gingrich said yesterday he would support a tobacco tax increase, but only as long as the money is used to give tax breaks for health-related costs -- namely for the self-employed -- and not for any new social programs the president wants. "If the president wants to raise the cost of cigarettes, I'll join him tomorrow and we'll do it, if he is willing to give the money back to the American people," Mr. Gingrich said. The McCain bill would raise the price of a pack of cigarettes, require tobacco companies to pay $516 billion over 25 years to cover legal costs and anti-smoking initiatives, give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco and cap annual payments on liability claims. Despite the obvious opposition, Mr. McCain insisted yesterday a comprehensive bill will pass Congress this year. "I believe that at the end of the day we will have a bill that attacks effectively kids smoking tobacco," he said. Mr. McCain said Mr. Lott, who has expressed serious skepticism about the prospects, assured him he was committed to getting the legislation approved this election year. "He told me that he still would like to move a bill forward," Mr. McCain said. Mr. Gingrich also promised yesterday: "We are going to have a bill." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government Date: 23 Apr 1998 12:12:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can = last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves = largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority = (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits = from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always = collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest democratic nations has been 200 = years. Each has been through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith. From faith to great courage. From courage to liberty.=09 From liberty to abundance. From abundance to complacency. From complacency to selfishness. From selfishness to apathy. From apathy to dependency. And from dependency back again into bondage. Can we escape this fate?" --Lord Thomas B. Macaulay, 1857 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: WT: Clinton secretly paid $200K for standing UN Army Date: 23 Apr 1998 13:02:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The WT hasn't updated their web site today but this is a front page story - here are the first few paragraphs White Houes backs standby U.N. army Funding circumvents Congress' wishes by George Archibald The Washington Tims Congressional officials are investigating $200,000 the Clinton administration gave the United Nations last fall as seed money to mobilize a worldwide standby army for peacekeeping operations. While the State Deaprtment insists it notified the relevant House and Senate committees about themove, key staffers on Capitol Hill said this week that they do not recall a notification. The congressional aides have started an inquiry to see if the standby army contribution was "buried" ina larger request ro reprogram appropriated State Department funds. The State Department, when queried about hte U.N. contribution, resued to release to the Washington Times documents sent to Congress as official notification because they are "privileged," said Joseph Dickie, spokesman for the department's international organizaton affairs bureau. The U.S. contribution, given quietly last September, was the first voluntary donation to establish a $2.3 million U.N. trust fund to findance the new U.N. trust fund to finance the new U.N. military operation called the Rapidly Deployable Missoin Headquarters (RDMHQ) according to sources close to Bernard Miyet, U.N. undersecretary-general for peacekeeping operations. END OF EXCERPT - -------- jhofmann@erols.com ========================================================================== 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: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: US still owes UN money (fwd) Date: 23 Apr 1998 13:15:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- U.S. not alone in U.N. arrears By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES (April 21, 1998) Forty-five countries, including Russia, owe the United Nations so much money from unpaid dues and peacekeeping assessments that they should have lost their voting rights in the General Assembly --but haven't. At the beginning of this year, as top-ranking U.N. officials and the administration berated Congress for unpaid U.S. dues -- including $488 million in disputed assessments -- Russia and 74 other countries owed the world body $559 million in unpaid dues going back many years, according to records kept by the U.N. contributions office. Arrears of the 75 delinquent nations on Dec. 31 were more than double their yearly assessments --the threshold established by the U.N. Charter for being bounced as voting members of the General Assembly. But in January, only 30 nations had been stripped of votes for the current session, according to U.N. officials. Fred Eckhard, the U.N. spokesman, ignored repeated requests by The Washington Times to explain the apparent discrepancy. "What a lot of countries do is pay immediately down to get under that two-year level" to avoid debarment, said Princeton N. Lyman, assistant secretary of state for international organizations, who oversees the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and administration policies toward the world body. "A special thing" was arranged to save Russia's vote, Mr. Lyman said. "The Russians had a contested amount like we did. ... They refused to recognize the peacekeeping the U.N. undertook in the Congo [in the 1960s]. They reached an agreement with the U.N. two years ago to pay it off over so many years, and everybody accepted that they would do that because it was a big amount." Russia owed about $400 million in unpaid peacekeeping assessments at the end of 1995 and had paid all but $136 million by the end of last year, the assistant secretary said. With unpaid dues for war crimes tribunals, Russia's total arrears are $139.9 million, according to figures provided last week by the U.N.'s Department of Administration and Management. Delinquent nations comprising a fourth of the U.N. membership include a largely socialist bloc that virulently criticizes the United States on a regular basis, even though the Unites States has paid a quarter of the U.N. budget since the organization was established in 1948. Third World countries voted last year to sharply cut their own assessments while increasing America's 25 percent share even higher, to 31 percent. "There is obviously a lot of hypocrisy in that," Mr. Lyman, formerly ambassador to South Africa, said. "But on the other hand, ... if you will look down the list of countries that have actually lost their votes because they couldn't get under [the 200 percent arrears threshold], most of them are the poorest countries. "So [representatives of U.N. member nations] say it's one thing for some of the poorest countries of the world not to even pay $27,000 [in yearly dues]. It's a different story for the richest country in the world to say we can't meet our 25 percent." But Sen. Rod Grams, Minnesota Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on international operations, says the Clinton administration encouraged the United Nations to increase its global power and activities, despite congressional legislation to limit the U.S. contribution to 25 percent. "In my opinion they might be leading or orchestrating a lot of it, encouraging it," Mr. Grams said. "This administration was at the heart of voting for a tremendous increase in peacekeeping activity, which then really widened the gap of ... the arrears that are in question." The United Nations claims that Washington owes $1.3 billion in unpaid arrears. But the administration and Congress dispute $488 million of the U.N. claim because of congressional legislation, signed by the president, prohibiting U.S. support for certain activities, and because of U.N. bookkeeping practices. The government acknowledges just $54 million in U.S. arrears for the regular U.N. budget. The administration acknowledges an additional $254 million in U.S. arrears to U.N. special agencies, but since 1996 Congress has prohibited $68 million of that amount to be paid to the U.N. International Development Organization (UNIDO). The government also acknowledges $658 million in peacekeeping arrears, mostly for the United Nations' failed operations in Bosnia from 1992 to 1996 when NATO forces took over. The United Nations, in turn, owes the United States $112 million for contributed troops to various peacekeeping missions. This week, the Senate is scheduled to take up a foreign aid conference report authorizing U.N. arrears payments of $819 million over the next three years. The payments are tied to requirements for comprehensive U.N. bureaucratic reforms and cost-cutting. The conference report has already passed the House. The administration opposes tying arrears payments to U.N. reforms, Mr. Lyman said. "The resentment against our arrears is so great that it's hurting us in some of the areas that we're trying to pursue," he said of reforms. "It's the Europeans who resent us the most, and they've paid up and they pay on time, and they're the ones owed a lot of this peacekeeping money." The United States pays its U.N. dues at least nine months late each year because the U.S. fiscal year starts Oct. 1 and Congress won't approve forward-funding, the assistant secretary said. "The U.N. can live with that because, if everybody else pays and we pay 25 percent, and they get ours in the last quarter of the year, it'll just work out," he said. However, Mr. Lyman blamed congressional conditions, such as a recently enacted requirement that U.N. yearly spending not exceed $2.53 billion, for further delays in U.S. payments. "We have to certify a number of things. That takes us sometimes six months. ... They're running way short of money by that time, so they start borrowing." He denied congressional claims that U.N. officials use peacekeeping funds as "a revolving slush fund" for overspending in other programs. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Fw: WELCOME TO NAZI AMERICA Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:22:56 -0400 >Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:16:20 -0800 >From: Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org> >Subject: Fw: WELCOME TO NAZI AMERICA >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > >Alert all persons and media in the New Jersey area. > >------------------------ >From: cas@alaska.net (Cas) > > ALL. . . . > > I JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A LONG TIME FRIEND OF ABOUT A QUARTER CENTURY. > HE IS AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN, FATHER AND FAMILY MAN. HE WORKS IN COMPUTERS > FOR A MAJOR PHONE COMPANY. HE'S A PART TIME GUNSMITH, SHOOTER AND >INSTRUCTOR. > HE IS ALSO A DEACON IN THE EPISPOCAL CHURCH. > > THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THIS IS NOT A DRILL. > > Cas Gadomski > Alaska > > >All: > >Welcome to Nazi Germany. And so it begins. Folks this is a REAL nightmare >come true. > >At 7:15 this morning (4/22) over a dozen machinegun armed agents of the NJ >State Police broke down my front door and invaded my home screaming >obsenities. We were rousted from our beds at gun point. I was ordered to >the floor and when I couldn't get down on my knees fast enough because of >my artificial knee and arthritis I was kicked to the floor, and my back and >neck repeatedly stomped. When one trooper yanked on my arm that had been >injured several years ago and I yelled in pain I was Maced and then kicked >in the head at least twice resulting in a bloddy lip and head pain. Of >course none of the storm troopers were wearing name tags. We were forced >into our living room, made to stand about in handcuffs for about four hours >in our pajamas while they trashed the house. > >They took all of my firearms, MOST of the ammunition (go figure), my >cartridge collection of US military ammo, my lead ingots and a couple of >buckets of cast bullets, all of my business records, and get this, my >Gunsite 260 certificate (they left my 499 certificate), and my NRA >Instructors certificate. They panicked at a dummy 60mm mortar round (the >kind you can pick up in surplus stores) and a blue dummy 100lb "practice >bomb" (empty sheet metal casing) yet left a couple of M79 practice grenade >rounds that were on display in my office. > >My wife and stepson were verbally abused and my stepson was grabbed and >roughed up by one young punk agent and threatened when he asked for some >clothes. > >All of the agents were pacing nervously about pointing their weapons all >over and were REALLY psyched up. They were really enjoying what they were >doing. I overheard several comments about "well we got another gun nut." >They joked about the fact that I was in excruciating pain from my shoulder >and knee. One storm trooper wanted to know what my "fucking problem was." I >was finally taken to the local PD where I was at least treated with a >little respect and compassion. > >I was finally released on $7,500 bail and my wife took me to the hospital >were I was x-rayed, catscanned and given some serious pain medication and >released. None of the hospital staff could believe what happened to me. > >When I finally got back to our house I was amazed to find that they had >left ammunition in my vault, and a lot of reloading components in my >basement. > >We have retained a big time attorney (NRA member) but have no idea how we >are going to afford him and my retirement papers are in. > >Your prayers for my family and I will be greatly appreciated in this >terrible time. > >John Schaefer > > > > > >- >(Cas) > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 04/23/98 Time: 08:16:20 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: details on the incident in New Jersey. (fwd) Date: 24 Apr 1998 00:14:08 PST On Apr 23, Charles Riggs wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] To the recipients of this message on this list- please forward to other lists - My apologies for forwarding the message this morning from John Schaeffer about the raid on his house in New Jersey without providing additional details, but I hadn't yet spoken with John at that time, and am writing this now to fill in the background. John is 53 and a veteran of the U.S. Army, works in computers with one of the largest phone companies in the country, holds an FFL, and is a gunsmith and consultant on firearms and ammunition. His clients have included police departments in the past. He was present at the introduction of the Steyr Scout rifle this year at Whittington center, and is a friend of Col. Cooper's, who is following this affair with great interest. He maintains information about the Scout rifle on his web page with the active assistance of Steyr, who provide the photos to him. He is a verger in the Episcopal church (assists with the liturgy) and lives with his wife and stepson. He is a decent man and well-regarded by the alumni of the American Pistol Institute/Gunsite Training Center, of whom I am one, and is NOT accused of ANYTHING to do with drugs or anything of that sort. He applied to renew his FFL this year and met with several delays which were not explained. The charges against him at this time state that he provided false information on the renewal for his FFL, and other charges related to this alleged misinformation, info which John provided as required by law and in good faith. He is also charged with resisting arrest after being knocked down and kicked in the head by the New Jersey State Police, and while face-down being sprayed directly in the face with capsicum by this same officer. The charges against him were arranged by BATF, but the raid prosecuted by the NJSP for reasons unknown. The raid occurred in Tom's Point, New Jersey in the early hours of 22 April 1998 as a no-knock dynamic entry when they kicked down his door and entered the house, screaming obscenities. They could have come and knocked on the door, and arrested John and served the search warrant peacefully, but they didn't. They came in hyped up and fired up, and revelled in "getting us another gun nut" as they ran amok in his home. They knocked John down when he didn't kneel on command, but John couldn't kneel because he has severe arthritis, has had one knee replacement and is pending another. He can't even kneel in church for the services. Apparently even if you can't bend your knee for God, you'll have to do it for the NJSP! They screamed obscenities and threatened violence throughout the raid, threatened his stepson, and physically abused him by grabbing him by the throat when he asked to be allowed to get dressed- and this while standing in front of his house in his underwear. I hope this is sufficient information for the members of this list about John and this incident, and that you'll now contact the Governor of New Jersey, the NJSP, and anyone else you can think of who may be able to help us bring these thugs to task for their outrageous misconduct. Write to your representatives and ask how it is that every time BATF is around this sort of madness follows. Ask how it is that we no longer deal in a civil fashion with peaceful citizens. Demand an accounting for policemen who treat a member of the Episcopal church like a common crackhead or violent felon. If what I've told you in this message doesn't convince you to stand up for John Schaeffer and take action, then I can't think of what else to say to you, except that no citizen of this nation, no God-loving man born of woman, should ever have to suffer at the hands of men who represent the law in this way. If you agree with me, please raise your voices and speak for John, and for our common freedom. Watch six- Charles Riggs. Charles Riggs- Gunsite 1991- DVC! "Stop Crime- Be Armed- Fight Back!" Ky. Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3) IDPA (Ky) - NRA - GOA Visit http://www.kc3.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS Date: 24 Apr 1998 00:13:23 PST Along with this basic info I'll post a more detailed account of this attrocity shortly. Repost them far and wide, of course. "Firearms and Politics" <fap@facteur.std.com> THIS IS NOT A TEST! THIS IS A REAL MESSAGE IN REAL TIME!! With John's permission I'm posting this to as many lists as possible. This outrage must be reversed and the men who committed these acts brought to justice. Please contact the Governor and the State Police in New Jersey and let them know that the nation is watching them, that they don't commit such acts in a vacuum!!!!!! God Save the Republic- Charles Riggs. ************************************ Contact info for New Jersey (web sites) http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact.htm http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/index.htm **************************************************** >From another list. Sorry for the headers, unable to edit from this dumb terminal. Paul --- Forwarded Message --- Subj: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS Reply-To: PRN@airgunhq.com Organization: AirPower Information Services (610) 259-2193 > > ALL. . . . > > I JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A LONG TIME FRIEND OF ABOUT A QUARTER > CENTURY. HE IS AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN, FATHER AND FAMILY MAN. HE WORKS > IN COMPUTERS FOR A MAJOR PHONE COMPANY. HE'S A PART TIME GUNSMITH, > SHOOTER AND INSTRUCTOR. HE IS ALSO A DEACON IN THE EPISPOCAL CHURCH. > > THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THIS IS NOT A DRILL. > > Cas Gadomski > Alaska > >>All: >> >>Welcome to Nazi Germany. And so it begins. Folks this is a REAL >>nightmare come true. >> >>At 7:15 this morning (4/22) over a dozen machinegun armed agents of the >>NJ State Police broke down my front door and invaded my home screaming >>obsenities. We were rousted from our beds at gun point. I was ordered >>to the floor and when I couldn't get down on my knees fast enough because >>of my artificial knee and arthritis I was kicked to the floor, and my back >>and neck repeatedly stomped. When one trooper yanked on my arm that had >>been injured several years ago and I yelled in pain I was Maced and then >>kicked in the head at least twice resulting in a bloddy lip and head pain. >>Of course none of the storm troopers were wearing name tags. We were >>forced into our living room, made to stand about in handcuffs for about >>four hours in our pajamas while they trashed the house. >> >>They took all of my firearms, MOST of the ammunition (go figure), my >>cartridge collection of US military ammo, my lead ingots and a couple >>of buckets of cast bullets, all of my business records, and get this, my >>Gunsite 260 certificate (they left my 499 certificate), and my NRA >>Instructors certificate. They panicked at a dummy 60mm mortar round >>(the kind you can pick up in surplus stores) and a blue dummy 100lb >>"practice bomb" (empty sheet metal casing) yet left a couple of M79 >>practice grenade rounds that were on display in my office. >> >>My wife and stepson were verbally abused and my stepson was grabbed and >>roughed up by one young punk agent and threatened when he asked for some >>clothes. >> >>All of the agents were pacing nervously about pointing their weapons all >>over and were REALLY psyched up. They were really enjoying what they >>were doing. I overheard several comments about "well we got another gun >>shoulder and knee. One storm trooper wanted to know what my "fucking >>problem was?" I was finally taken to the local PD where I was at least >>treated with a little respect and compassion. >> >>I was finally released on $7,500 bail and my wife took me to the hospital >>were I was x-rayed, catscanned and given some serious pain medication >>and released. None of the hospital staff could believe what happened to >>me. >> >>When I finally got back to our house I was amazed to find that they had >>left ammunition in my vault, and a lot of reloading components in my >>basement. >> >>We have retained a big time attorney (NRA member) but have no idea how >>we are going to afford him and my retirement papers are in. >> >>Your prayers for my family and I will be greatly appreciated in this >>terrible time. >> >>John Schaefer -- (Cas) AirPower Information Services BBS * 610-259-2193 http://www.airpower.com Telnet://airpower.dyn.ml.org -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Scientists' Petition Against Kyoto Treaty (fwd) Date: 24 Apr 1998 00:34:23 PST Well, we allready knew the Whitehouse was like that didn't we? On Apr 23, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] *** FORWARDED MESSAGE *** >Here are some >excerpts from the Science and Environmental Policy Project press >release. You can read the whole release and a list of signers on >their Web site: http://www.sepp.org. > > "FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, APRIL 21, 1998 -- More than 15,000 >scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now >signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto >(Japan) in December 1997. The Petition (see text below) urges the >US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic >cuts in energy use on the United States.... > > "In signing the Petition within a period of less than six >weeks, the 15,000 basic and applied scientists -- an >unprecedented number for this kind of document -- also expressed >their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto >Accord. The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate >computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United >Nations and other promoters of the Accord as =91proof' of a major >future warming. The covering letter enclosed with the Petition, >signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, President emeritus of Rockefeller >University and a past President of the U.S. National Academy of >Sciences, states it well: > "=91The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. >Research data on climate change do not show that human use of >hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence >that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally >helpful. This freely expressed vote against the warming scare >propaganda should be contrasted with the claimed =91consensus of >2500 climate scientists' about global warming. This facile and >oft-quoted assertion by the White House is a complete >fabrication. The contributors and reviewers of the 1996 report by >the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) >actually number less than 2000, and only a small fraction >-- who were never polled -- can claim to be climate scientists. >Many of those are known to be critical of the IPCC report and >have now become signers of the Petition. The 'silent majority' of >the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype >emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming >catastrophe.' The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust >felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously >involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of >science to promote a political agenda,' said Dr. Seitz. > > "Dr. S. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental >Policy Project (SEPP) and author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: >Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, explained: =91Scientists are >understandably upset when they see $2 billion per year >devoted to research on climate change, much it irrelevant and >concerned only with imaginary consequences of a hypothetical >warming -- while other fields of science are starved.'... > > "The Petition drive was organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson, >director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (Cave >Junction, OR) and a vocal critic of the shaky science used to >support the Kyoto Accord.... > > "The full text of the Petition follows: > > "=91We urge the United States government to reject the global >warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December >1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on >greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance >of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of >mankind. > "=91There is no convincing scientific evidence that human >release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is >causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic >heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's >climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that >increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial >effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the >Earth.'" *** END FORWARDED MESSAGE *** Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Check out The Advance America Web Page http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/advance.htm [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS Date: 24 Apr 1998 06:01:55 -0400 (EDT) The storm toopers are always careful to have a pretext to explain their behavior: "Suspicion of domestic violence," "neighbor reported he was despondent, so we needed to take him for psychiatric observation," felony jaywalking, or something. You forgot to mention which it was this time. bd On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Bill Vance wrote: > Along with this basic info I'll post a more detailed account of this > attrocity shortly. Repost them far and wide, of course. > > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 10:32:16 -0000 > From: Charles Riggs <dvcnra45@dcr.net> > To: "Guns Save Lives!" <gsl@listbox.com>, > "Firearms and Politics" <fap@facteur.std.com> > Subject: Fwd: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS > > THIS IS NOT A TEST! THIS IS A REAL MESSAGE IN REAL TIME!! With John's > permission I'm posting this to as many lists as possible. This outrage > must be reversed and the men who committed these acts brought to justice. > Please contact the Governor and the State Police in New Jersey and let > them know that the nation is watching them, that they don't commit such > acts in a vacuum!!!!!! God Save the Republic- Charles Riggs. > > ************************************ > > Contact info for New Jersey (web sites) > > http://www.state.nj.us/governor/contact.htm > http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/index.htm > **************************************************** > > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:21:08 -0400 > From: "Paul A. Miller" <73006.3331@compuserve.com> > Subject: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS > > >From another list. > > Sorry for the headers, unable to edit from this dumb terminal. > > Paul > > --- Forwarded Message --- > > Date: 23-Apr-98 07:03 EDT > From: INTERNET:PRN@airgunhq.com > Subj: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS > > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <PRN@airgunhq.com> > Reply-To: PRN@airgunhq.com > From: cas@alaska.net (Cas) > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 06:20:47 -0500 > Organization: AirPower Information Services (610) 259-2193 > Subject: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS > > > > > ALL. . . . > > > > I JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A LONG TIME FRIEND OF ABOUT A QUARTER > > CENTURY. HE IS AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN, FATHER AND FAMILY MAN. HE WORKS > > IN COMPUTERS FOR A MAJOR PHONE COMPANY. HE'S A PART TIME GUNSMITH, > > SHOOTER AND INSTRUCTOR. HE IS ALSO A DEACON IN THE EPISPOCAL CHURCH. > > > > THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THIS IS NOT A DRILL. > > > > Cas Gadomski > > Alaska > > > >>All: > >> > >>Welcome to Nazi Germany. And so it begins. Folks this is a REAL > >>nightmare come true. > >> > >>At 7:15 this morning (4/22) over a dozen machinegun armed agents of the > >>NJ State Police broke down my front door and invaded my home screaming > >>obsenities. We were rousted from our beds at gun point. I was ordered > >>to the floor and when I couldn't get down on my knees fast enough because > >>of my artificial knee and arthritis I was kicked to the floor, and my back > >>and neck repeatedly stomped. When one trooper yanked on my arm that had > >>been injured several years ago and I yelled in pain I was Maced and then > >>kicked in the head at least twice resulting in a bloddy lip and head pain. > etc. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS Date: 24 Apr 1998 07:36:07 PDT roc@lists.xmission.com wrote : >Along with this basic info I'll post a more detailed account of this >attrocity shortly. Repost them far and wide, of course. It seems that on A-INFOS there is a weekly letter to devoted to things done by the police in New Jersey. Called New Jersey Police Watch. Last week he had some items like this post....tho this weeks issue is a bit tame The person who posted the following has the following E-mail address ErnstLynch@aol.com Jack ________________________________________________ A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E http://www.ainfos.ca/ ________________________________________________ State police expand campaign against aggressive drivers Synopsis: Police use federal grant to saturate local roads, shakedown drivers for petty motor vehicle offenses, feed human product into the criminal injustice system, while greatly increasing their yearly salaries with over- time pay and creating a financial boom for local municipalities with windfall income from fines. They ask for public support and participation in turning in your fellow workers. Full News Copy: By Terri Somers Law Enforcement Writer The Asbury Park Press (Apr. 9, 1998) If it seemed like there were more state troopers anad other police officers patrolling the road during your commute yesterday, you weren't imagining it. Be prepared for more of the same today. Yesterday state police expanded their year-old campaign against aggressive drivers on commuter roadways to include Routes 18 and 1. They urged municipal police to assist in their zero tolerance for drivers who speed, tailgate and change lanes without warning. The results of the year-old campaign and details of how it will continue and grow, will be discussed at a news conference this morning at the state police barracks on Route 1 in Plainsboro Township. It started a year ago with the commitment of 50 local police departments in Monmouth, Middlesex and eight other counties to increase patrols along the commuter roads and a $450,000 federal grant to offset overtime. Police also set up two telephone numbers for motorists to report aggressive drivers: 1-888-SAF-ROAD (723-7623) and *77 for cellular telephone users. Through the program's first six months, police received more than 11,800 calls reporting aggressive driving. By Jan.1, participating departments issued more than 35,000 summones, including more than 7,000 for failure to wear seat belts. Eighty-one people were arrested for drug possession and other criminal offenses. The program has concentrated on six counties: Monmouth, Middlesex, Atlantic, Burlington, Essex and Bergen. In five of those counties, total highway fatalities dropped from 167 to 128 compared with the same period the previous year - a 23.4 percent decline. In Monmouth County, however, highway fatalities rose from 29 to 30, which police attribute to several accidents with multiple fatalities. Copyright - The Asbury Park Press 1998 ------------------ Police ponder need for added security Synopsis: Cops fearing for their safety from public reprisals have begun fortifying their station houses with bricks, mortar, and bullet proof glass. Full News Copy: The Associated Press - Hackensack - They're sworn to protect and serve the public, but police departments across the state are evaluating whether the stations where they work are secure enough to protect them. A recent incident in Jersey City, in which a man with a lengthy criminal record was able to walk into the station late at night, assault the officer on duty and wrestle a weapon away from another officer, has highlighted the risks officers face. One officer was critically wounded in that incident on Feb.8 before a third officer shot and wounded the attacker. "I think the Jersey City thing happened because of the age of the building," said Rochelle Park Police Department Detective Don Simon. "Nobody would build a facility like that anymore. It's not safe." Rochelle Park's 3-year-old station has inch-thick bulletproof glass separating the dispatcher and others working in the building from the public. In Paramus, visitors have to be buzzed in. And in Westwood, a magnetic door lock only allows credentialed employees past the lobby. Officers who work in stations without security, like the one in Paterson, say it's about time they got some protection as well. "It's going to take someone getting shot before they do anything," said one officer, who asked his name not be used. "They're right on top of us, all hours of the day and night," said another. "Some kook could walk in here with a shotgun and we'd be dead on the floor." But some say that while bulletproof barriers increase safety, they also get in the way of community policing. Hackensack Police Chief Charles "Ken" Zisa said he has no plans on installing bulletproof glass in his 45-year-old building, where officers sit on a raised platform. "It creates barriers, even if it's just a wall of glass," he said. "Other departments look like Fort Knox compared to us. But I just don't think it's very personal to talk through a microphone and glass." Meanwhile, Jersey City is in the process of beefing up its security arrangements. Even before the shooting, the department was in the process of buying surveillance cameras and magnetic door locks. Now it will also install safety glass in the lobbies of all four of its district stations, said Sgt. Edgar Martinez, the department's spokesman. Copyright - The Asbury Park Press 1998 ------------------ Police tips go online Synopsis: Police departments go on-line with Web sites. One can register a bicycle, find out about where the police are placing speed traps (as if they want you to know), and visit a vainglorious museum. Oh yeah! You can also become a police informer and tip them off to crimes in your area, right on- line. Full News Copy: By Matt Sheehan Coastal Monmouth Bureau The Asbury Park Press Ocean Township residents can register their bicycles while surfing, using a bicycle registration page on the police department's Web site. The Web site was developed by Patrolman Warren Kruse about a year ago and features a number of crime-fighting tools. Several Monmouth County police departments have Web sites. However, the township's is unique in the county because of its bicycle registration page and other interactive pages. Kruse, a computer science major at Rutgers University, said the Internet is a quick way to get crime and safety information out to a large group of people. Currently, there are more than 150 residents on the Web site's e-mail list, he said. "I try and solicit feedback from the public as much as possible," Kruse said. "I tell the townspeople that it's their page." The bicycle registration page was a necessity, because a number of stolen or lost bicycles go unclaimed, said Chief William Koch. "It's so frustrating to auction off all these bikes every year," Koch said. The Web site also features Crime Net Alert, which notifies residents and business owners of such things as telephone soliciting scams, and tells drivers where police will use radar to monitor speed. An online museum features photographs of past and present police officers dating to 1930. Net surfers also can tip off police to crimes in the area. The Web address is www.oceantwp.org/police. Bicycle registration is free. Copyright - The Asbury Park Press 1998 -------------------- ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, material appearing here is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes. ** ***A-INFOS DISCLAIMER - IMPORTANT PLEASE NOTE*** A-Infos disclaims responsibility for the information in this message. ******** The A-Infos News Service ******** COMMANDS: majordomo@tao.ca REPLIES: a-infos-d@tao.ca HELP: a-infos-org@tao.ca WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/ >- > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: a vast left-wing conspiracy? Date: 24 Apr 1998 12:02:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980423.btl.vast.left_wing.conspiracy.h= tml WorldNetDaily Thursday, April 23, 1998=20 A vast left-wing conspiracy?=20 By Joseph Farah Last week I told you more about newly elected Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA, than you probably cared to know.=20 I told you how she served on the coordinating council of the Committees of Correspondence, a group founded by Communist Party USA members purged by Gus Hall. I told you how she has palled around with long-time Communist Angela Davis, three times the party's nominee for vice president of the United States, who once beat a homicide rap. I told you how documents captured by U.S. military forces in Grenada showed Lee, while working with her predecessor and mentor, Rep. Ron "Red" Dellums, had betrayed her role as a U.S. government official and sanitized an official national security report in favor of the local tin-pot dictator, Maurice Bishop. And I told you how she, while serving as a U.S. government employee, had traveled to Cuba for a "non-aligned" nations conference as a "journalist" for a left-wing San Francisco weekly rag.=20 Now, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.=20 It turns out that San Francisco paper Ms. Lee represented in Cuba, the Sun-Reporter, was edited at the time by the late Dr. Carlton Goodlett. On April 22, 1970, Dr. Goodlett received the Lenin Peace Prize in Moscow. It was quite an affair -- attended by Leonid Brezhnev and other party notables. And no wonder -- the date marked Lenin's 100th birthday.=20 Let me remind you, that until 1956, the Lenin Prize was called the Stalin Stipend. The name was changed only after Nikita Khruschev denounced mass murderer Josef Stalin at the Twentieth Party Congress in Moscow. It was not just an honorary award for promoting the cause of world Communism and Soviet hegemony. It was established in 1928 as the socialist rival to the Nobel Prize and paid its recipients amounts ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles.=20 When Goodlett returned with his cash, he proceeded to file as a candidate for governor of California in that year's election. He also bankrolled (and I will leave it to your imagination to decide from where the money originated) the first big election bids of former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and former Rep. Dellums.=20 In October 1997, a Freedom of Information Act request was filed with the FBI. It sought information about Goodlett, particularly with respect to the Lenin Prize and about his backing of Dellums. A few weeks later, Dellums surprised virtually everyone on Capitol Hill, throughout his district and across the nation by resigning in the middle of his two-year term.=20 What goes on here?=20 Perhaps the 1996 presidential election, in which it now appears foreign money played such a crucial role, was not the first of its kind. Perhaps this sort of thing has been going on for the last 30 years or so. Perhaps Barbara Lee's rapid rise to political stardom is part of a plan hatched long ago and far away.=20 But don't try to find any coverage of such monumental coincidences anywhere in the establishment press. When Goodlett received the Lenin Prize, coverage amounted to one line in The New York Times, the newspaper of record, and zilch in the San Francisco papers. There has been no follow-up on the revelations regarding Ms. Lee, our newest member of Congress, broken here in cyberspace. And, so far, the FBI is still mum about the Dellums race -- probably in the interest of vital national security.=20 Meanwhile, what is the press covering? Are the news media focused on more important issues, like what China actually bought with those illegal campaign contributions in 1996? Oh no. It may be another 30 years or so before we can connect those dots. So what if the president winks when his biggest domestic campaign donors pass on sensitive missile technology to their business partners in Beijing? You see, the journalistic watchdogs of our precious freedom are busy following up Hillary Clinton's leads on "the vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get her husband.=20 Barbara Lee was sworn into the House of Representatives by a smiling Speaker Newt Gingrich this week. She glibly took her oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. She has also filed her papers to seek a full, two-year term. The primary election, in which she is not expected to face any serious opposition, is scheduled for June 2. Chances are she'll, once again, face only token opposition in November from Republicans who are scared to death to tell the American people the truth.=20 ====================================================================== Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WrldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. =A91998, Western Journalism Center =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction of Freedom Date: 24 Apr 1998 16:44:21 -0500 (CDT) 4-24-98 Paul Watson, Plano Texas MAD, the Mutually Assured Destruction of freedom I will probably never see this suggestion taken to heart by the American people. That is why the Government wins and the People continue to loose. We are currently stuck in a impossible situation. It is the perfect stalemate with two opposing sides, Democrats and Republicans, Left and Right that are locked in a seemingly eternal battle for the right to use government. It is the mutually assured destruction of freedom. Until the left and right are willing to give up the use of government in an attempt to control some very political "hot potatoes", neither side is going to win and all of us are going to loose our liberty. A major side effect of elected government officials, like the US House, Senate and President, is that every time they are in session we get more laws, rules and executive orders over our lives and liberty. Will Rogers once said something like Liberty has no greater peril than when the legislature is in session. Both sides end up promoting more: laws, government jobs, government cost, government rules, government bureaucracy, taxes and less freedoms. I think our forefathers knew this quite well and tried to write the Constitution in order to limit government abuse. The best way to prevent people from doing bad things is with good self morals, ethics and values. Our Family values, Religions and American ethics used to teach us how to do this. Laws will never "prevent" a bad person from doing bad things, thats why we called them "outlaws" after all. Good people do good things because its the right thing to do not because of some law. Besides, how many laws are there and does anyone claim to now what really is legal or illegal? As society and families in general have broken down with increasing illegitimate births, divorce, situational ethics, and crime, we have tried to fill the gap with more government. Government is only good at a few major things like commerce between the states, war, standing armies, public roads and the like. Government will never substitute for a lack of good families and good people. Are you willing to give up your pet government control for the sake of Freedom and Liberty? If you say "but its bad" then we as a nation and our republican constitutional protected freedoms are finished in America. Just remember, is the legislature in session, is liberty in Peril? These sides generally use government against: On the Left On the Right ----------- ------------ Guns Drugs Christians Abortion Land owners Homosexuals Free speech Pornography Capital Labor These sides generally use government for: Environmentalism Tax breaks Consumerism Big Corporations Progressive taxation Corporate welfare Government jobs Corporate jobs Social welfare Defense industries Foreign Grants World bank, IMF fund United Nations NAFTA, GATT Political correctness Minorities Gay rights Feminism - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Your Activism Date: 25 Apr 1998 07:28:20 -0400 >Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:58:06 -0400 >From: Gun Owners of America <goamail@gunowners.org> >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <goamail@gunowners.org> >To: goamail@gunowners.org >Subject: Your Activism >X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] > >Thanks to Your Activism: >Texas cosponsors lead the way on Brady Repeal >Two more Senators flee Hatch's Horror Bill! > >by Gun Owners of America >8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, >(703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org >(Friday, April 24, 1998) > > >Texas Democrat, Ralph Hall, joins Rep. Paul (R-TX) on Brady >Registration Repeal > >The Lone Star state chalked up another cosponsor this >week in support of repealing the Instant Registration Check. >Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX) signed on to H.R. 2721, the bill that >repeals some of the most onerous gun laws on the books. In >addition to repealing Brady, H.R. 2721 repeals the semi-auto >ban and the unconstitutional "sporting purposes" test. > >GOA staff are currently blazing a trail on Capitol >Hill, notifying members of Congress about the dangers that >are inherent to the Brady law. Because this registration >scheme is scheduled to start in November, gun owners are >encouraged to "double down" and continue urging their >Representatives to cosponsor Ron Paul's bill. > > ACTION: If you're a constituent of Rep. Hall, make >sure you thank him for his cosponsorship of H.R. 2721! (You >can reach him at the Capitol Hill toll-free number: 1-800- >504-0031.) Otherwise, keep hammering away at the other >Representatives. GOA has included another clip-n-mail >message at the bottom of this alert for your convenience. > > >Two more Senators ditch S. 10; total number of drop-offs >hits six > >Congratulations to Idaho and Wyoming gun owners. Your >activism has peeled-off two more supporters of S. 10. >Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) became the >fifth and sixth cosponsors to jump off of the Senate Horror >Bill introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). > >Republican Senators that still need encouragement to jump >off the bill: Abraham (MI), Aschroft (MO), Bond (MO), >Coverdell (GA), Domenici (NM), D'Amato (NY), Faircloth (NC), >Gorton (WA), Grams (MN), Grassley (IA), Hagel (NE), Helms >(NC), Hutchinson (AR), Inhofe (OK), Kyl (AZ), Lott (MS), >Mack (FL), McConnell (KY), Murkowski (AK), Roberts (KS), >Sessions (AL), Thurmond (SC) and Warner (VA). > >(Clip-n-mail message in support of H.R. 2721) > >Dear Representative: > >I urge you to cosponsor Rep. Ron Paul's Brady repeal bill >(H.R. 2721). This November, when the Brady Law converts >over to the Instant Registration Check, federal bureaucrats >will begin conducting background checks on ALL gun purchases >- shotguns and rifles included. > >As stated by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America: >Every Federal Gun Law on the Books: > > When the permanent Brady rules come on line, ALL gun sales > > - long guns and handguns - will fall under federal control > of "national instant background checks." The centralized > federalization of all gun-sale records will be complete. > >I agree with Mr. Korwin. The Instant Registration Check is >not only unconstitutional, it gives the federal government >the potential to register ALL gun buyers. No matter how many >prohibitions are written into the law, the possibility of >gun owner registration is always present as long as the >Instant Check remains law. > >Law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove their >innocence to government officials before exercising their >rights. So I urge you to cosponsor H.R. 2721 - a bill that >will repeal Brady and put an end to this dangerous law. >Please let me know what you intend to do. > >*********************************************************** >Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of >getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider >joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service >is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume >is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week >indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward >this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your >state of residence in either the subject line or the body. > > > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Release: deadly prescription drugs Date: 25 Apr 1998 07:29:50 -0400 Best reason I've seen yet to end this madness. Tom >Date: Fri, 24 Apr 98 13:06:13 PDT >From: announce@lp.org >Subject: Release: deadly prescription drugs >Sender: announce-request@lp.org >Reply-To: announce@lp.org >To: announce@lp.org (Libertarian Party announcements) >X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.8 > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >=============================================== >NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY >2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 >Washington DC 20037 >=============================================== >For release: April 24, 1998 >=============================================== >For additional information: >George Getz, Press Secretary >Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 >E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com >=============================================== > > >Legal drugs kill 20 times more Americans >than illegal drugs, says embarrassing new study > > WASHINGTON, DC -- Doctors kill far more people every year than >drug pushers do -- a surprising fact that should make sensible >Americans start to question the War on Drugs, the Libertarian Party >said today. > > Last week, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that >properly prescribed legal drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year -- 20 >times more than illegal drugs do. > > "Are politicians going to declare a War on Medicine?" asked >Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party chairman. "Of course not. So why are >we spending $17 billion on the War on Drugs, arresting millions of >people, and restricting civil liberties -- all to try to solve a >problem that's far less dangerous than modern medicine?" > > The study found that correctly prescribed medications claim >106,000 lives a year because of toxic reactions. By comparison, only >5,212 Americans die annually from illegal drugs like heroin and >cocaine, according to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health >Administration. > > "This means that doctor-prescribed drugs kill 20 times more >people every year than drugs peddled on street corners," said Dasbach. >"Of course, more people take prescription medication than illegal >drugs, so higher death totals are expected. But the point is that the >health consequences of illegal drugs are vastly overstated by >politicians -- apparently to justify the costly government program they >call the War on Drugs." > > In fact, Dasbach pointed out, the government admits that >aspirin killed twice as many people last year as PCP and LSD combined! > > "But don't expect a War on Aspirin," Dasbach said. "The >government is less interested in protecting lives than in protecting >the jobs of the government bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel >who are on the Drug Prohibition payroll. > > "For example, marijuana has caused no deaths, yet the >government arrested 641,642 Americans last year on marijuana-related >offenses, and is threatening to prosecute doctors who prescribe >marijuana for victims of AIDS and cancer," he noted. > > The fact is, the real health threat comes not from drugs, but >from drug prohibition, Dasbach said. > > "As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman says, 5,000 >Americans are killed every year solely due to Prohibition-spawned >violence -- meaning that outlawing drugs kills as many Americans every >year as the drugs themselves," he said. > > Dasbach emphasized that the Libertarian Party doesn't condone >drug use. > > "Too many lives have been ruined by drugs, whether legal or >illegal -- and we mourn a lost life, no matter what the cause," he >said. "But when the government arbitrarily decides which drugs to >outlaw, it transforms a personal tragedy into a national disaster and >turns a medical problem into a moral crusade. > > "Politicians who focus obsessively on the drug war -- while >ignoring the fact that other medical problems are far more deadly -- >have lost their grip on reality. As this new study makes clear, the War >on Drugs has more to do with political posturing than with public >health -- and that's why it's time to end it." > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBNUDsr9CSe1KnQG7RAQHBbQQAiUmdIvZge9B5JKwaep0UlB1zTsTqbsrO >WFUAyx6yiUzlIY8Jrn6Cnm6PpJ5U1VKlQdSn7n3k6K5lloTUNddzbRTUhD+CrSyu >VpRtG8SZNRl2hobNECQe8jzKlDymllZ4B0QAey5C2sZuPSWTE92uZcANZPldpd55 >bgvd1SN5jh0= >=qsdu >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ >2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 >Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 > >For subscription changes, please mail to <announce-request@lp.org> with the >word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Need FIJA material Date: 25 Apr 1998 08:13:29 -0700 (PDT) A friend of mine needs some good, elementary FIJA material. I have none in electronic form. If anyoner has some, please e-mail it to thompson@characterlink.net Thanx a bunch. S. "Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." -- Peter W. Huber - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> Subject: more words re. recent NJ excitement Date: 26 Apr 1998 02:14:28 -0400 (EDT) FWIW. The following could be all true, all falsehood, or a 50-50 mix. Just as was true of the original posts on the topic. I don't personally care what Shaefer owns or whether or not he is a "convicted felon." If he wasn't hurting anybody, the "boots" ought to leave him alone. However, Shaefer may not be the ideal poster child. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: GSL Re: NJ Incident Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:01:39 EDT Reply-To: gsl@listbox.com To: sjg6@gate.net http://GunsSaveLives.com As you may or may not know, I run a radio station in Boston. I saw the original story on the NJ raid, thought it may make an interesting topic on our saturday morning talk show. I asked my News Director to check it out. He came up with the following, which seem to be missing from the original description of the incident. Shaefer is a convicted felon, taking a fall for endangering a child in 1989 in Monmouth, NJ, court. He walked on two other charges. The Feds found out he was a disqualified person in possession of firearms and reported him to the NJ authorities. Both the state and Feds were on the scene since he was in violation of both fed and state statutes. A judge in NJ issued the warrant. He was peppered, not maced, when he continued to approach the entry team after being told to halt. Since he's a convicted felon and self-defense instructor believed to be in possession of firearms, what exactly did he expect. In the event, it turns out he had a loaded .45 in his dresser. He neglected to mention that what was confiscated included 27 firearms, CS and Smoke grenades, det cord, plus documents he used to falsify his FFL renewal form. The story about the dummy mortar round was a smokescreen. He is being charged with being a convicted felon in possession of firearms and destructive devices, so I guess not all that stuff was 'inert.' At the time, he only asked the police to change the position of his handcuffs (from back to front) when he said it hurt his back. They did. He never requested medical attention while with the police. When they start giving you the 'church going, family man, pillor of the community, loved by all' line instead of real facts, the warning flags should go up. All we need is bunch of pro-gunners, who continually mention, factually, that gun owners are the most law-abiding segment of the population, shooting off letters to the editor supporting this guy and then get hung out to dry by appearing to be supporting illegal activity (we may not agree with it, but it is still illegal.) I can well understand Shaefer's reluctance to relate all the little details, but he damages all of us by neglecting to mention all the pertinent information, especially the most important details. I'm still counting my blessings that I checked this out before putting it on the air. I have a pro-gun editorial policy here at the station, and the damage to our credibility would have been enormous. I would have had the 'anti' crowd beating me over the head with this for the next ten years. Regards, TSB - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #82 (fwd) Date: 26 Apr 1998 10:54:54 PST On Apr 26, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia April 26, 1998 #82 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html CONGRESS SUPPORTS LAWBREAKERS They're lining up, choosing sides, developing strongholds, amassing ammunition, and readying to attack. It's the socialists against the conservatives, the Democrats against the Republicans, Clinton supporters against everyone else. And, in this case, it's crooked against legal, corruption against ethical, wrong against right. In other words, it's business as usual in the United States House of Representatives. Rep. Dan Burton's House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings.htm) is up and running again. And, unlike some other Congressional committees, Committee Chairman Burton (R-Ind.) decided that a wealth of information will be provided to the American public. Already, their web page is good reading. The Clinton disinformation team has, of course, targeted Burton for a number of dirty tricks. They have investigated everything in Burton's life and even sicced the Department of Justice on him. Obviously, Rep. Dan Burton must be one of the cleanest Members of Congress, else anything Hillary's diabolical cabal of secret police and truth-fabricators found would be plastered on the front page of newspapers from coast to coast. All this White House harassment has probably taken it's toll on Burton, too. Just a few days ago, in an interview with the editorial board of The Indianapolis Star, Burton committed the truth when he said: "If I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, he'd (Clinton) be gone. This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm after him." We should note here that a number of politicians are saying that Burton should not have publicly called Clinton a scumbag. But, as of this writing, not one politician -- even the rabid Clinton supporters -- is saying that Clinton is not a scumbag. Their only argument is that Burton should have not pointed it out publicly. Rep. Burton needs our moral support. A postcard (2185 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515; 1-(202)-225-2276) of thanks that can be read by everyone along the way seems very appropriate right now. Many thousands of postcards of support could certainly frighten those corrupt Democrats into cooperating rather than obstructing. And, while we're thinking of corrupt Democrats, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the committee's ranking Democrat, also needs attention. Why the people of California would want to inflict someone like him on the American public is beyond me. Waxman is a socialist from way back. Now, as he aggressively defends corruption in government and shows his true colors to all, perhaps the good people of California will notice and get rid of him. Meanwhile, a House Member whose legislative record shows little more than contempt for the Constitution of the United States is now using the Constitution in defense of his illegal activities. And, the leadership of the House is clearly letting him get away with it. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit filed against him by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). McDermott, if you remember, is the person responsible for illegally leaking an illegally taped cellular phone call between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner (and others). They say that call "was illegally recorded" from a police scanner by "a Florida couple active in Democratic politics," who gave the tape to McDermott. A number of electronic surveillance experts suspect that professionals actually recorded that call. But the fact remains that the Florida couple pled guilty to the action in open court. Discrimination of information acquired from illegally recorded calls is also illegal. However, McDermott argues that the First Amendment protects his right to leak the contents of the tape recording to newspapers. Boehner said that: "By continuing to deflect attention away from his illegal conduct, McDermott brings shame and dishonor on the very institution he has sworn to serve." Yes! Exactly. So censor him. McDermott's lawyers reply: "The government's undisputed interest in protecting the confidentiality of telephone conversations is not enough to justify punishment for a citizen who lawfully obtained and disclosed to the news media an audiotape of such a conversation." . . . "The basic question presented is: May a person be subjected to legal penalties for providing the news media with truthful and lawfully obtained information on a matter of substantial public concern? The First Amendment allows only one answer to that question: No." Apparently, Washington lawyers operate under a greatly different set of laws than the rest of America. Because, if any "citizen" recorded a newsworthy conversation by a federal prosecutor and provided it to someone to deliver to the press, the person doing the recording, the person delivering the information, and the editor publishing the material would be carried away wearing stainless-steel bracelets just as soon as that prosecutor could get to them! The newspapers printing the conversation between Newt and Boehner will get away with it free and clear, too. The newspaper editors surely knew that they were acquiring illegally gotten material. But, because that conversation, when twisted enough, could be embarrassing to Gingrich and Boehner, they printed it anyway. Now, here comes a flash from the past: Former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta practically admitted on NBC in March of 1997 that the 1996 Clinton reelection committee illegally spent $35-million to $40-million in Democratic National Committee "soft money" contributions on campaign commercials. Federal law prohibits the use of that money in an election campaign. Yet, to date, there have been zero arrests. Clearly, the Washington cadre violate the law continuously, intentionally and with impunity. Many of these people belong in a federal institution all right, but it ain't the halls of government. ENFORCE THIS LAW Most Americans are familiar with that capricious morass we know as the federal regulatory bureaucracy. That's the alphabet soup agency domain based inside the Beltway where arrogant bureaucrats wield "Administrative Law" with tyrannical expertise. Administrative Law is to American citizens, of course, that unconstitutionally despotic branch of law where one is always guilty until able to prove themselves innocent. Today's federal regulatory bureaucracy controls nearly everything in the life of nearly every American citizen. The system was unconstitutional from it's inception, and the U.S. Supreme Court correctly labeled it as such. It took the antics of FDR, the closest thing the United States has had to a full dictator, to intimidate and harass the Court into granting approval. Since then, it's been a Washington control thing. The administrative and legislative branches have learned to like these unconstitutional regulatory powers, and so refuse to give them up. So, it was with great surprise that, while wandering through federal government organization laws in Title 5 that we stumbled on Part 1, Chapter 7, which pertains to judicial review of federal agencies. Specifically, the law is 5 USC 706, which describes the scope of review of the courts. This may be dry stuff, but this law is also short, to the point and potentially very useful. Check it out: To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall -- (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be -- (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. Pay close attention to section 2, parts A and B. "The reviewing court shall" . . . "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be" . . . "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion" or . . . "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity." Congress wrote this law and a President signed it. Therefore, at one point in time anyway, we can assume that they meant it to be enforced. And, that being the case, we citizens have cause for some very serious discussion with the federal regulatory bureaucracy! "The reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . contrary to constitutional right." Federal courts must enforce Constitutional rights? Wow, what a concept! Now, how do we get them to do it? As an aside here: Congress inflicts stiff penalties for civilians violating laws, but very few for public servants. That must be changed. There should be at least a five year prison penalty for any judge, prosecutor or bureaucrat breaking or ignoring a law which causes a wrong to an American citizen. Else, they will continue doing exactly as they wish, to the detriment of all of our rights and liberties. Lawyers feel perfectly free to go after physicians and other professionals for negligence and malpractice. Judges, prosecutors, bureaucrats and lawyers are also negligent and malpractice from time to time. It's time they stop getting a free ride from the legal system. Their mistakes adversely affect people's lives. Therefore, they must also be held legally accountable for their wrongs. Otherwise, we have two classes of citizen. NO MORE FREE TRADE While reading of the drastic increase (it tripled) in the abuse of hard drugs by American teens these past five years, the evening news was showing President Clinton down in Santiago, Chile hobnobbing with "34 Leaders of the Western Hemisphere's democracies." Yup, there he was, big as life; surrounded by some of our hemisphere's currently active tyrants, murders, cocaine and heroin suppliers, and soon to be (says Clinton) major free-trade partners with the United States. Free trade? Like with Mexico? Just say no! We tried that with Mexico. Today, Mexico's largest "free trade" export to the United States is cocaine, with heroin still running far behind in dollar value but advancing quickly. "Here in Santiago the ground has been broken for the largest free trade area in history," Chilean President Eduardo Frei told the summit session. Then, as he announced that the combined economies would total $9 trillion, these "world leaders" proceeded to sign the "Declaration of Santiago." Clinton managed to interject that democracy was still fragile in many parts of the hemisphere. "We must continue to stand fast for democracy ... with no holdouts and no backsliders." By "democracy" Clinton means, of course, a central government in strict control of everything. Many South American leaders are quite good at that. Others, like Chile's President Frei, are having a bit of a problem. Vast areas of Chile are controlled by rebels, who make a considerable amount of money growing coca for cocaine to send here. It has often been said, and still bears repeating from time to time, that the national sport of South America is revolution. And, because hundreds of federal agents have been interfering in just about everything down there for the past 50 years, there are vast segments of the population who are not very friendly to United States citizens. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien was there, too. Canada -- if there still is a Canada then -- will host the next Summit of the Americas in 2000. Anyway, disregarding all the problems he has at home, Chretien said economic integration was now an established fact. "My colleagues, let us tell our people, let us tell the world, loud and clear, once and for all, as we turn the page to a new century, that the era of building walls is over," Chretien said. Then, he waxed even more rhetorical for a moment. Completely forgetting about Quebec, Chretien said: "The new century that is dawning, the global century, will be a time of building bridges." Before he was done, Chretien, and thirty- three other "leaders" openly criticized the United States for opposing the inclusion of Cuba in the agreement. In fact, the Canadian Prime Minister announced he will visit Havana next week, specifically to discuss human rights and trade with Cuba -- and maybe to pick up a few pointers on the application of socialism. Clinton wishfully mentioned "fast track" again. However, even most of these third world leaders knew perfectly well that Clinton was just blowing smoke. There is no way that Congress will give him fast-track negotiating powers. Clinton tried to gloss over that, and at one point even tried to say that he would bargain such a deal through Congress. Fat chance! These countries may be in the "American Hemisphere." But, they (Canada excepted) certainly are not what people in other parts of the world think of when the word "America" is mentioned. There are many real reasons for that. And we do not need any of those reasons imported here. NEWSLETTER DISCLAIMER, OR WHATEVER Some people get really picky. Especially lawyers when they get to be judges. One judge (a subscriber) called "on another matter," as they say, and mentioned that it has been quite some time since we disclosed ownership and finances for this newsletter. We flippantly tried to tell him that we do not have any. He asked, "which, ownership or finances?" We replied, "both." But, like last year, he ordered that we: "write something anyway." So . . . here goes: Heads Up is not exactly owned by anyone because there is really nothing to own. By that we mean that it has no office, has no finances, offers nothing for sale, and hence makes no profit. We print no hardcopies, therefore, we use no supplies. Current subscribers of Heads Up number almost 700 Americans from all walks of life. From aircraft pilots to zoologists; from Militia members to legislators; a good cross section of America is represented. In truth, we have no idea how many people read this newsletter every week. That is because most subscribers send the newsletter to their friends and/or post it somewhere. Also, a number of print publications -- like Media Bypass and The Idaho Observer -- have blanket permission to reprint whatever they wish. A few broadcasters also have the same permission. We have nothing to offer here except ideas -- our viewpoint on the facts moving the news. I do not expect that readers will agree with everything I write. And that is as it should be. My intent -- my only reason for writing -- is to offer a Constitutional perspective on current events not found anywhere in the major media. Many people have asked if we are ever harassed for what I write. Others have said that Heads Up is a little too hard on the central government and we could receive a "visit" if I don't take it easy. Our standard answer for that is simple: I jokingly say fine; just have them call ahead so we bring the Great Dane in first. Then I'll put on a pot of coffee and we can "visit" a while. In fact, I'll invite the old judge and his retired lawyer friends over too, and we can all have an interesting afternoon discussing Constitutional issues. Interestingly enough, we receive mail every week from elected officials and bureaucrats. Sometimes it's because we know them personally, but usually it is to trade information. In 82 weeks of publication, not one person from any branch of any government has ever done or said anything that could possibly be construed as retaliation for what I write. They sometimes write in disagreement, which is their right; but that is all. On the other hand, two very good Constitutional lawyers and a number of elected officials from around the country took the time to read the "State of the Union 1998" report and they read this newsletter regularly. And, I am happy to report, they agree with most of what they read. Severe criticism comes from liberal journalists, members of a number of far-left "Non-Governmental Organizations," and a certain bureaucrat at the United Nations. But, because I'm seen as trying to disassemble their nests, one twig at a time, that can be expected. Another problem is that this type is used to having normal people suck-up to them. When they call here and get brash with me, I'll as often as not tell them to shove their socialist ideals someplace that's inconvenient -- and probably physiologically impossible anyway. These socialist activists would love to have a forum to contradict this newsletter. I tell them that they already do. We call it the national media. Still, some have actually asked for equal time here. That'll never happen. Whatever success this newsletter has is due directly to the readers. As some readers will remember, I was censored two years ago because I wrote about the UN's plan to tax American citizens and the UN operation of biosphere reserves in the United States. Those articles elicited letters of complaint from international lawyers, law professors and a weird array of one world government bureaucrats from around the world. That, as was the intention, caused the people distributing my writing quite a lot of problems. As it turned out, I was exactly correct in what I wrote. But that didn't help much at the time. Today, the newsletter cannot be censored. Unlike other publications, Heads Up is in the unique position of being distributed by the readers -- a whole lot of readers. And for that, I thank you all. We also thank Jeff in Michigan for archiving the newsletter, and Forest in California who will begin posting current issues on his new site as soon as it is up. We may also have our own small web page someday soon, but I think we only get a couple megs of space. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland <boyd@seanet.com> Subject: Re: more words re. recent NJ excitement Date: 26 Apr 1998 11:04:48 -0700 We're running a political movement. It is -so- critical that we approach these things carefully (not to mention simply a mark of a carefull thinker) I don't think it can be stressed enough. My thanks to TSB and to anyone else who can provide rapid verifiable information on things like this. Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland <boyd@seanet.com> Subject: Re: more words re. recent NJ excitement Date: 26 Apr 1998 11:04:48 -0700 We're running a political movement. It is -so- critical that we approach these things carefully (not to mention simply a mark of a carefull thinker) I don't think it can be stressed enough. My thanks to TSB and to anyone else who can provide rapid verifiable information on things like this. Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett <harryb@eskimo.com> Subject: Sleep well tonight... Date: 26 Apr 1998 22:18:42 -0700 (PDT) The following is not a joke, or a put-on. I wish it was. This is an article excerpted from the Valley Daily News, Kent, Washington, April 26, 1998. -----Article excerpt ------------ *Driver busted for 'improper' car litter bag* Associated Press Olympia, Washington April 26, 1998 A motorist stopped for speeding was arrested and handcuffed by Olympia police officers for failing to have a litter bag in his car. The officer who arrested Jerry Clark last month also made it clear that not just any litter bag would do. Officer Bryan Henry wrote that when he looked in Clark's car, he did not see a "state-approved and designed litter bag." "I asked Clark if he had a litter bag," Henry added, "and Clark pointed to a grocery bag on the floor." The law does require drivers to carry a litter bag, but doesn't say what kind. It does say the state will distribute free bags bearing the "statewide anti-litter" symbol. But state officials say that due to budget shortfalls, the bags are no longer made. Clark, 28, of Olympia, was handcuffed and hauled off to the city jail, where he was later released without being booked. Clark doesn't dispute the speeding ticket, and he acknowledges mouthing off to the officers. But he says the police used the law on litter bags to harass him. "Nobody should get treated like that," Clark said. "It was total abuse." Henry and Sgt. John Hutchings said in their reports that Clark was aggressive, verbally abusive, irrational, and hostile. After being processed at the jail, Clark was cited and released for speeding, not a having a litter bag, and improper placement of a license plate. Clark was later charged with carrying a dangerous weapon, a 4-inch fixed blade hunting knife found in a map pocket in his car. The case has received the attention of state Rep. Peggy Johnson, R-Shelton, who said she was considering legislation to repeal the waste-bag law. Police Chief Gary Michel said there were no grounds to reprimand the officers involved, but said the issue would be discussed in future training. -------------End of excerpt------------------------- Don't you fell safer now, knowing your local Scheutstaffel are awake? And these gun-totin' Protectors of the Public Peace consider it remarkable that someone treated like this should be "aggressive, verbally abusive, irrational, and hostile"? Well, DUH! ----- Harry Barnett <harryb@eskimo.com> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: US backs UN Gun Control (fwd) Date: 27 Apr 1998 08:37:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- U.S. aims to shoot down illicit firearms trafficking Nation backs U.N. resolution for the first time Last updated 04/25/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT New York Times News Service VIENNA, Austria =97 In a major step against international crime, the Clinto= n administration is co-sponsoring a U.N. resolution aimed at curbing illicit trafficking in firearms. It is the first time the United States has endorsed a U.N. resolution on firearms regulation, U.S. officials said. The action came after a week of intense negotiation in Vienna among the delegates to the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Late Thursday, the Clinton administration agreed to support the resolution, drafted by Canada and Brazil, but only after it had been rewritten to clarify that it does not call for action on possession of handguns or domestic sales of guns. The resolution urges governments to adopt measures, including an international accord, aimed at "combating illicit trafficking in firearms." The United States also joined Canada in recruiting other sponsors, and by the end of the day 21 countries had agreed, including Russia, Germany, Britain, Japan, Australia and Argentina. "The phenomena of transnational crime is causing a ratcheting up of international cooperation against trafficking," said Jonathan Winer, a deputy assis tant secretary of state and the head of the U.S. delegation.= =20 The resolution is expected to be approved when it is put before the 40 members of the commission Monday, delegates said. "This is quite a dramatic change for governments," said James Hayes, coordinator for international firearms issues in the Canadian Justice Department. "They are now accepting that they must take accountability for guns going out of their countries."=20 "In an era of globalization and easier flow of goods, firearms are going to be treated as different than other commodities," said Hayes. He and U.S. Customs Agent James McShane have promoted U.N. action to curb firearms trafficking. Hayes said the resolution, along with a treaty on firearms regulations adopted last November by the Organization of American States, would make it easier to combat crime. "There will be more transparency in the movement of firearms," he said. "It will be far easier to trace them." It is largely because of the difficulty of tracing firearms once they have been sold to countries in the European Union that the Clinton administration decided Wednesday to suspend the sale of U.S. weapons to British companies. Even though the resolution is not as tough as many gun-control advocates would have liked, they were generally pleased. "It's the best we could expect," said Philip Alpers, a gun policy researcher from New Zealand. "It is the next stage in a long process that will eventually make it more difficult to move guns across borders." He and representatives of other nongovernmental organizations said the U.S. decision was a defeat for their antagonists, like the National Rifle Association. Though acknowledging that she was "not happy" with the outcome, the NRA's chief lobbyist, Tanya Metaksa, said the group had achieved some victories in the process, like defeating a Japanese proposal that dealt with possession of firearms. The organization is opposed to any U.N. involvement in firearms issues. "The bottom line is that the U.N. should respect the sovereignty of countries, on all issues, and that for them to tread on national policy is bad international policy," said Metaksa. Metaksa turned her criticism to the process that produced the resolution. "There were not open and fair discussions," she said. "These are not open meetings."=20 The NRA, however, was an accredited participant at the meetings, which were open to journalists and generally more open than most U.N.=20 deliberations. Between September and January, the United Nations held workshops on firearms regulations in Lubliana, Slovenia; Arusha, Tanzania; Sao Paolo, Brazil; and New Delhi, India.=20 The process alone, even before Friday, has been salutary, advocates of domestic gun-control laws said. "It has encouraged governments to focus on gun laws and adopt tougher ones," said Rebecca Peters, an Australian who represented the International Alliance of Women. She said, for example, that after the workshop in New Delhi, in January, Mongolia banned the import of all firearms. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg <wbg@hevanet.com> Subject: Re: Sleep well tonight... Date: 27 Apr 1998 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote: > > This is an article excerpted from the Valley Daily News, Kent, > Washington, April 26, 1998. > > -----Article excerpt ------------ > > *Driver busted for 'improper' car litter bag* In my truck, between the front seats, I carry a 1.5-gal. Rubbermaid wastebasket. I wonder whether that would meet with the approval of Washington's Garbage Gestapo? They couldn't object to my piece, since I have a Washington carry permit for that, right alongside my Oregon permit. Brewster -- **************************************************************** " Liberalism today plays much the same role in social life that Christianity played in late Victorian Britain; increasing numbers of people have come to suspect that it is not valid, even as they find themselves utterly unable to imagine any alternative source of truth. " David Frum, in _Atlantic Monthly_, March 1995 **************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Democrats block investigation on Clinton Date: 27 Apr 1998 12:32:30 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.federal.com The Washington Weekly April 27, 1998 CHAIRMAN BURTON CRITICIZES WHITE HOUSE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Dan Burton, Govt. Reform and Oversight Committee Good morning. Today we are meeting to consider granting immunity to four witnesses. This is a very serious matter. It is a matter that I hope every Member has considered carefully. This Committee has faced obstructions that no previous Congressional investigation has ever had to face. More than 90 people have either taken the Fifth or fled the country to avoid testifying. 53 people involved in raising money for the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton/Gore Campaign have taken the 5th -- 53. That means that 53 people that this Committee has sought to speak to may have committed crimes. That is just an astonishing number that everyone should stop and think about. These 53 people aren't just rank and file fundraisers. They include senior Presidential appointees and friends of the President. Webster Hubbell has taken the Fifth. He reasserted his claim just this week. He was the President's Associate Attorney General. He received $100,000 from the Riady family of Indonesia while he was under investigation. Mark Middleton has taken the Fifth. He worked in the office of the Chief of Staff to the President. He had numerous White House meetings with the Riadys, John Huang, Charlie Trie and Ng Lap Seng. John Huang has taken the Fifth. He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and a major fundraiser at the DNC. The President was personally involved in placing him in both positions. 37 witnesses have fled the country. Charlie Trie fled the country for over a year. He returned to the U.S. following his indictment by the Justice Department. He was a Presidential appointee to a high-level trade commission. Ted Sieong has fled the country, along with 11 members of his family. His daughter, who has remained in the United States, has taken the Fifth. So have three of his business associates. Today, we will consider immunity for one of his closest associates -- Kent La. The Sieong family and their associates have given over $400,000 to the Democratic Party. They have given $150,000 to Republican candidates and groups. We have had an absolute stone wall erected to prevent us from getting to the facts about Ted Sieong. All together, over 90 people have refused to cooperate. This is unprecedented. There has never been a Congressional investigation that has faced this kind of stonewall. I have asked my staff to erect the wall that you see to your left so that everyone can see very graphically what kind of obstacles this Committee faces in getting at the truth. You can see the pictures - many with the President - of the major figures of this investigation who have fled the country or taken the 5th. The Director of the FBI testified here last December. He has had a long and distinguished career in law enforcement. He was a prosecutor, a Federal judge, and now the Director of the FBI. I asked him if he had ever seen an investigation in which so many people have taken the Fifth or refused to cooperate. He responded that the only time he faced similar obstacles was when he was prosecuting organized crime cases in New York. My colleague Mr. Waxman likes to complain about the number of subpoenas I have issued. There have been about 600. It would not be necessary to issue so many subpoenas if we had more cooperation from some of the President's friends and appointees. We have issued over 100 subpoenas just to get information about Charlie Trie, his associates, and his activities. This was necessary because Charlie Trie had fled the country and gone to China and most of his associates took the fifth or fled. If Mr. Trie had stayed in the country and cooperated with us, these subpoenas would not have been necessary. We have had to issue close to 60 subpoenas to try to get information about Ted Sioeng because he has fled the country. Most of his family has fled the country. In fact, about 80% of the subpoenas we have issued have been targeted to get information from about a half-dozen key people who have declined to cooperate with us -- Charlie Trie, John Huang, Ted Sioeng, Webster Hubbell, Johnny Chung, Mark Middleton, and Gene and Nora Lum or a combination of these people and their associates. One thing that is very clear to me is that, when you have more than 50 people taking the Fifth, and when you have more than 30 people fleeing the country, that is a very strong indicator that there was a high level of criminal activity swirling around the President and his campaign. That is inescapable. But the stonewalling doesn't stop there. This Committee has faced incredible stonewalling from the White House. * The White House has been absolutely recalcitrant in turning over documents. We had to go to the brink of holding the White House counsel--Charles Ruff--in contempt of Congress to get the White House to produce documents. * The White House withheld videotapes of the President at White House fundraisers for six months after they were subpoenaed -- 6 Months. * The President has absolutely abused the power of executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing. Six months ago -- last September -- we attempted to depose Bruce Lindsey -- one of the President's closest advisors. We attempted to ask him about his conversations with the President about James Riady. Mr. Lindsey told us that the President intended to claim executive privilege. When we pressed the issue this spring, the White House relented and admitted that there was no legitimate claim of executive privilege, and that Mr. Lindsey would answer the questions. Such frivolous claims of executive privilege should not be made. We have seen executive privilege abused time and time again. * Just last month, a White House official -- Marsha Scott -- got up and walked out of a deposition. She was under subpoena and she got up and walked out. We had to call an emergency meeting of the McIntosh Subcommittee to compel her to come back and testify. We still have not completed her deposition. She is scheduled to return next week. This is the kind of non-cooperation we have received from the White House. It is very clear what the White House strategy has been all along - -- attack anyone that investigates, stall and delay and drag out the investigation as long as possible, and then have White House allies in Congress criticize us for the length of the investigation. Unfortunately, this is a very cynical game designed to keep the facts and the truth from the American people. That brings us to today's meeting. Today, we will vote to offer immunity to four witnesses. The Justice Department has provided approval to the committee for immunizing all four. We have had numerous meetings with the Justice Department and the minority has been included in these discussions. It is my hope that we will start to lower that stone wall a little bit. Let me talk for just a few moments about these witnesses, and then we will discuss them further during general debate. Kent La -- Kent La is a close business associate of Ted Sioeng. He owns the company that distributes Ted Sioeng's Chinese cigarettes in the United States. He contributed $50,000 to the DNC. The few people who know Ted Sioeng and have been willing to cooperate have all said that Kent La is beyond a doubt the most knowledgeable person in the country about Sioeng and his activities. Irene Wu -- Irene Wu was Johnny Chung's office manager and top assistant at his company. She arranged his travel and attended numerous fundraising events with him. Numerous witnesses who have been interviewed by this Committee have reported that she distributed reimbursements for conduit payments to President Clinton's campaign. Irene Wu has already been immunized by the Justice Department and testified before a grand jury. Nancy Lee -- Nancy Lee was also an employee of Johnny Chung. She has also been implicated in soliciting conduit contributions and reimbursing the donors with cash. She has also been given immunity by the Justice Department and testified before a grand jury. Larry Wong -- Larry Wong has been a long-time friend of Democratic Fundraisers Gene and Nora Lum. The Lums have been a subject of this Committee's investigation for quite some time. A number of witnesses have informed the Committee that Larry Wong should be very knowledgeable about the Lums' contributions. We have been involved in lengthy consultation with the Justice Department about these witnesses. It has been a slow process -- slower than I think it should have been. In some cases, we have agreed not to pursue immunity for witnesses at the request of the Justice Department. In other cases, we continue to try to work out disagreements. However, the Justice Department has agreed to immunity for these four witnesses. The Justice Department does not oppose us granting immunity to any of these witnesses. Now, let me turn to a subject that I know that Mr. Waxman is eager to discuss today -- the comments that I made about the President over the recess. I would like to say a few things: Our Committee Report and any criminal referrals to the Justice Department will be based on facts we gather and not on my personal opinions. Perhaps I could have used different more diplomatic language to describe how I feel, but the fact is -- I do not believe that the President is a man of integrity. And I believe any objective person who follows the facts would agree with me. Look again at that Wall -- I call it a Wall of Shame. 90 people - -- many members of the present Administration or close friends of the President have headed for the hills -- all of the President's men and women are running and those that are willing to come forward are attacked, villified and if possible destroyed because they are willing to talk. And finally, on this subject, what I'm "out to get" -- is the truth -- which is very hard to obtain because all of the President's men and women are either fleeing the country or taking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination from criminal prosecution. The American people have a right to know! I do believe after this much of our investigation, that if we could prove 10% of what we believe to be fact, that this Administration and the President would be in serious trouble! Let me once again restate this -- I may personally have some strong feelings about the President. My feelings are what they are. But as chairman of this Committee, I set my personal feelings aside. I base my decisions on the facts. I have always strived to do what is best for the country, and that is what I will continue to do. We all have strong feelings about different people. On the floor of the House yesterday, Mr. Waxman called me "vile" and "reprehensible." A few months ago, Mr. Lantos compared one of our witnesses -- a highly-respected lawyer and independent counsel -- to a Nazi. A leading Democratic Senator even described the President as "an unusually good liar." I would be very surprised if Mr. Waxman or some of his colleagues haven't had private conversations where they called me worse. My point is that we all have our personal opinions. As we do our jobs here, we all have to put those personal feelings aside and do what we believe is best. That is what I intend to do. Now let me address the matter of the Hubbell tapes. Mr. Waxman has expressed great dismay that we are releasing to the public tapes made of Mr. Hubbell's phone calls while in prison. He has called me vile and reprehensible. Let me tell you what I believe is reprehensible. Webster Hubbell was the Associate Attorney General of the United States. He was appointed by President Clinton to be one of the highest law enforcement officials in the land. He is now a convicted felon. He has taken the Fifth and refused to cooperate with this Committee. The American people have an absolute right to know why Webster Hubbell received a $100,000 payment from the Riady family of Indonesia. Americans have an absolute right to know why Mr. Hubbell received $700,000 in payments -- most of it from friends and associates of the President -- at a time that Hubbell was under criminal investigation and believed to be a key witness in matters related to the President and First Lady. The American people have an absolute right to expect that the Associate Attorney General of the United States of America would not stonewall a Congressional investigation. Mr. Hubbell is a key figure with close ties to the President, the First Lady and figures such as James Riady and John Huang, as well as other political allies of the White House. He has refused to cooperate with this investigation and the independent counsel's office has also been reported to be frustrated with his lack of cooperation despite being provided a plea agreement. Let it be clear; when Mr. Hubbell was in jail, he was well aware that his conversations were monitored and taped, as is common practice in prison. These tapes were obtained legally by the committee and the committee has followed the proper protocols with respect to them. Last week, the working group acted to make the tapes public. Mr. Waxman was involved in that process. As we go forward, we are going to limit to the extent possible the release of purely personal information on the prison tapes. We are going to focus the public release of tapes on those which relate to matters bearing on this investigation such as possible obstruction of investigations, White House pressure on Mr. Hubbell or his family, his connections with the Riadys and John Huang, his connections with other political associates of the President, and his $700,000 or more in payments. Committee staff are editing the transcripts of these tapes so that only conversations that are relevant to this investigation are released. Only a limited portion of these Hubbell prison tapes will end up being made public -- the portions that have a bearing on our investigation. This process is still on-going. So as you can see, all of these hysterics have been for nothing and again designed to deflect attention from the real facts. This is not the first time that hysterical charges have been made. Mr. Waxman accused me of leaking two tapes of Webster Hubbell to the press a few weeks ago. The problem is, he didn't check the facts. He was wrong. The tapes in question were entered into the Committee record during our Committee hearings with Attorney General Janet Reno on December 9 under a unanimous consent request by Mr. Shays. Here is a copy of the page from the transcript. Mr. Lantos chaired that hearing. Yesterday on the House floor, Mr. Waxman said that we have spent over $6 million on this investigation. Again, he is wrong. He hasn't checked the facts. He isn't even in the ballpark. In fact, this Committee spent less than $2.5 million on this investigation last year. 25% of that was given to Mr. Waxman's staff. I think most of his money was spent writing letters to me. A lot of these allegations and accusations are meant to distract our attention from the real issue -- determining who was responsible for the millions of dollars in foreign money and illegal contributions made during the last campaign. But we will not be distracted. I believe that there are probably some people at the White House and at the DNC who hope that we will not begin to immunize some of these witnesses. I am sure that there are more than a few people who are not upset at the wall of silence. But we have a job to do. We must begin to tear down the wall. We have an obligation to get to the truth. The American people have a right to know. We have honorable men and women on both sides of this Committee. There is no question about that. It is time to set aside the distractions and the side issues. It is time to start getting the facts out. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support immunity for these witnesses. The Justice Department has no objections, and neither should we. Published in the Apr. 27, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact ========================================================================== 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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Democrats block investigation on Clinton Date: 27 Apr 1998 11:31:17 PST Is it coincidence that there are about as many, (80+), Mysterious Deaths surrounding our Cappo Di Tutti Cappi In Chief as there are obstructions? Nahhhhh, couldn't be.....:-/ On Apr 27, <pwatson@utdallas.edu> wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:26:38 -0500 >From: Bill Nalty <CBasher@worldnet.att.net> >Subject: CAS: WW: Chairman Burton Criticizes WH Obstruction of Justice > >http://www.federal.com > >The Washington Weekly >April 27, 1998 > >CHAIRMAN BURTON CRITICIZES WHITE HOUSE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE > >Dan Burton, Govt. Reform and Oversight Committee > > >Good morning. Today we are meeting to consider granting immunity >to four witnesses. This is a very serious matter. It is a matter >that I hope every Member has considered carefully. > >This Committee has faced obstructions that no previous >Congressional investigation has ever had to face. More than 90 >people have either taken the Fifth or fled the country to avoid >testifying. 53 people involved in raising money for the >Democratic National Committee or the Clinton/Gore Campaign have >taken the 5th -- 53. That means that 53 people that this >Committee has sought to speak to may have committed crimes. That >is just an astonishing number that everyone should stop and think >about. > >These 53 people aren't just rank and file fundraisers. They >include senior Presidential appointees and friends of the >President. Webster Hubbell has taken the Fifth. He reasserted his >claim just this week. He was the President's Associate Attorney >General. He received $100,000 from the Riady family of Indonesia >while he was under investigation. Mark Middleton has taken the >Fifth. He worked in the office of the Chief of Staff to the >President. He had numerous White House meetings with the Riadys, >John Huang, Charlie Trie and Ng Lap Seng. John Huang has taken >the Fifth. He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and a >major fundraiser at the DNC. The President was personally >involved in placing him in both positions. > >37 witnesses have fled the country. Charlie Trie fled the country >for over a year. He returned to the U.S. following his indictment >by the Justice Department. He was a Presidential appointee to a >high-level trade commission. > >Ted Sieong has fled the country, along with 11 members of his >family. His daughter, who has remained in the United States, has >taken the Fifth. So have three of his business associates. Today, >we will consider immunity for one of his closest associates -- >Kent La. The Sieong family and their associates have given over >$400,000 to the Democratic Party. They have given $150,000 to >Republican candidates and groups. We have had an absolute stone >wall erected to prevent us from getting to the facts about Ted >Sieong. > >All together, over 90 people have refused to cooperate. This is >unprecedented. There has never been a Congressional investigation >that has faced this kind of stonewall. I have asked my staff to >erect the wall that you see to your left so that everyone can see >very graphically what kind of obstacles this Committee faces in >getting at the truth. You can see the pictures - many with the >President - of the major figures of this investigation who have >fled the country or taken the 5th. > >The Director of the FBI testified here last December. He has had >a long and distinguished career in law enforcement. He was a >prosecutor, a Federal judge, and now the Director of the FBI. I >asked him if he had ever seen an investigation in which so many >people have taken the Fifth or refused to cooperate. He responded >that the only time he faced similar obstacles was when he was >prosecuting organized crime cases in New York. > >My colleague Mr. Waxman likes to complain about the number of >subpoenas I have issued. There have been about 600. It would not >be necessary to issue so many subpoenas if we had more >cooperation from some of the President's friends and appointees. >We have issued over 100 subpoenas just to get information about >Charlie Trie, his associates, and his activities. This was >necessary because Charlie Trie had fled the country and gone to >China and most of his associates took the fifth or fled. If Mr. >Trie had stayed in the country and cooperated with us, these >subpoenas would not have been necessary. > >We have had to issue close to 60 subpoenas to try to get >information about Ted Sioeng because he has fled the country. >Most of his family has fled the country. > >In fact, about 80% of the subpoenas we have issued have been >targeted to get information from about a half-dozen key people >who have declined to cooperate with us -- Charlie Trie, John >Huang, Ted Sioeng, Webster Hubbell, Johnny Chung, Mark Middleton, >and Gene and Nora Lum or a combination of these people and their >associates. > >One thing that is very clear to me is that, when you have more >than 50 people taking the Fifth, and when you have more than 30 >people fleeing the country, that is a very strong indicator that >there was a high level of criminal activity swirling around the >President and his campaign. That is inescapable. > >But the stonewalling doesn't stop there. This Committee has faced >incredible stonewalling from the White House. > >* The White House has been absolutely recalcitrant in turning >over documents. We had to go to the brink of holding the White >House counsel--Charles Ruff--in contempt of Congress to get the >White House to produce documents. > >* The White House withheld videotapes of the President at White >House fundraisers for six months after they were subpoenaed -- 6 >Months. > >* The President has absolutely abused the power of executive >privilege to cover up wrongdoing. Six months ago -- last >September -- we attempted to depose Bruce Lindsey -- one of the >President's closest advisors. We attempted to ask him about his >conversations with the President about James Riady. Mr. Lindsey >told us that the President intended to claim executive privilege. >When we pressed the issue this spring, the White House relented >and admitted that there was no legitimate claim of executive >privilege, and that Mr. Lindsey would answer the questions. Such >frivolous claims of executive privilege should not be made. We >have seen executive privilege abused time and time again. > >* Just last month, a White House official -- Marsha Scott -- got >up and walked out of a deposition. She was under subpoena and she >got up and walked out. We had to call an emergency meeting of the >McIntosh Subcommittee to compel her to come back and testify. We >still have not completed her deposition. She is scheduled to >return next week. This is the kind of non-cooperation we have >received from the White House. > >It is very clear what the White House strategy has been all along >- -- attack anyone that investigates, stall and delay and drag out >the investigation as long as possible, and then have White House >allies in Congress criticize us for the length of the >investigation. Unfortunately, this is a very cynical game >designed to keep the facts and the truth from the American >people. > >That brings us to today's meeting. Today, we will vote to offer >immunity to four witnesses. The Justice Department has provided >approval to the committee for immunizing all four. We have had >numerous meetings with the Justice Department and the minority >has been included in these discussions. It is my hope that we >will start to lower that stone wall a little bit. Let me talk for >just a few moments about these witnesses, and then we will >discuss them further during general debate. > >Kent La -- Kent La is a close business associate of Ted Sioeng. >He owns the company that distributes Ted Sioeng's Chinese >cigarettes in the United States. He contributed $50,000 to the >DNC. The few people who know Ted Sioeng and have been willing to >cooperate have all said that Kent La is beyond a doubt the most >knowledgeable person in the country about Sioeng and his >activities. > >Irene Wu -- Irene Wu was Johnny Chung's office manager and top >assistant at his company. She arranged his travel and attended >numerous fundraising events with him. Numerous witnesses who have >been interviewed by this Committee have reported that she >distributed reimbursements for conduit payments to President >Clinton's campaign. Irene Wu has already been immunized by the >Justice Department and testified before a grand jury. > >Nancy Lee -- Nancy Lee was also an employee of Johnny Chung. She >has also been implicated in soliciting conduit contributions and >reimbursing the donors with cash. She has also been given >immunity by the Justice Department and testified before a grand >jury. > >Larry Wong -- Larry Wong has been a long-time friend of >Democratic Fundraisers Gene and Nora Lum. The Lums have been a >subject of this Committee's investigation for quite some time. A >number of witnesses have informed the Committee that Larry Wong >should be very knowledgeable about the Lums' contributions. > >We have been involved in lengthy consultation with the Justice >Department about these witnesses. It has been a slow process -- >slower than I think it should have been. In some cases, we have >agreed not to pursue immunity for witnesses at the request of the >Justice Department. In other cases, we continue to try to work >out disagreements. However, the Justice Department has agreed to >immunity for these four witnesses. The Justice Department does >not oppose us granting immunity to any of these witnesses. > >Now, let me turn to a subject that I know that Mr. Waxman is >eager to discuss today -- the comments that I made about the >President over the recess. I would like to say a few things: > >Our Committee Report and any criminal referrals to the Justice >Department will be based on facts we gather and not on my >personal opinions. > >Perhaps I could have used different more diplomatic language to >describe how I feel, but the fact is -- I do not believe that the >President is a man of integrity. And I believe any objective >person who follows the facts would agree with me. > >Look again at that Wall -- I call it a Wall of Shame. 90 people >- -- many members of the present Administration or close friends of >the President have headed for the hills -- all of the President's >men and women are running and those that are willing to come >forward are attacked, villified and if possible destroyed because >they are willing to talk. > >And finally, on this subject, what I'm "out to get" -- is the >truth -- which is very hard to obtain because all of the >President's men and women are either fleeing the country or >taking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination from criminal >prosecution. The American people have a right to know! > >I do believe after this much of our investigation, that if we >could prove 10% of what we believe to be fact, that this >Administration and the President would be in serious trouble! > >Let me once again restate this -- I may personally have some >strong feelings about the President. My feelings are what they >are. But as chairman of this Committee, I set my personal >feelings aside. I base my decisions on the facts. I have always >strived to do what is best for the country, and that is what I >will continue to do. > >We all have strong feelings about different people. On the floor >of the House yesterday, Mr. Waxman called me "vile" and >"reprehensible." A few months ago, Mr. Lantos compared one of our >witnesses -- a highly-respected lawyer and independent counsel -- >to a Nazi. A leading Democratic Senator even described the >President as "an unusually good liar." I would be very surprised >if Mr. Waxman or some of his colleagues haven't had private >conversations where they called me worse. > >My point is that we all have our personal opinions. As we do our >jobs here, we all have to put those personal feelings aside and >do what we believe is best. That is what I intend to do. > >Now let me address the matter of the Hubbell tapes. > >Mr. Waxman has expressed great dismay that we are releasing to >the public tapes made of Mr. Hubbell's phone calls while in >prison. He has called me vile and reprehensible. > >Let me tell you what I believe is reprehensible. Webster Hubbell >was the Associate Attorney General of the United States. He was >appointed by President Clinton to be one of the highest law >enforcement officials in the land. He is now a convicted felon. >He has taken the Fifth and refused to cooperate with this >Committee. The American people have an absolute right to know why >Webster Hubbell received a $100,000 payment from the Riady family >of Indonesia. Americans have an absolute right to know why Mr. >Hubbell received $700,000 in payments -- most of it from friends >and associates of the President -- at a time that Hubbell was >under criminal investigation and believed to be a key witness in >matters related to the President and First Lady. The American >people have an absolute right to expect that the Associate >Attorney General of the United States of America would not >stonewall a Congressional investigation. > >Mr. Hubbell is a key figure with close ties to the President, the >First Lady and figures such as James Riady and John Huang, as >well as other political allies of the White House. He has refused >to cooperate with this investigation and the independent >counsel's office has also been reported to be frustrated with his >lack of cooperation despite being provided a plea agreement. > >Let it be clear; when Mr. Hubbell was in jail, he was well aware >that his conversations were monitored and taped, as is common >practice in prison. These tapes were obtained legally by the >committee and the committee has followed the proper protocols >with respect to them. Last week, the working group acted to make >the tapes public. Mr. Waxman was involved in that process. > >As we go forward, we are going to limit to the extent possible >the release of purely personal information on the prison tapes. >We are going to focus the public release of tapes on those which >relate to matters bearing on this investigation such as possible >obstruction of investigations, White House pressure on Mr. >Hubbell or his family, his connections with the Riadys and John >Huang, his connections with other political associates of the >President, and his $700,000 or more in payments. Committee staff >are editing the transcripts of these tapes so that only >conversations that are relevant to this investigation are >released. Only a limited portion of these Hubbell prison tapes >will end up being made public -- the portions that have a bearing >on our investigation. This process is still on-going. So as you >can see, all of these hysterics have been for nothing and again >designed to deflect attention from the real facts. > >This is not the first time that hysterical charges have been >made. Mr. Waxman accused me of leaking two tapes of Webster >Hubbell to the press a few weeks ago. The problem is, he didn't >check the facts. He was wrong. The tapes in question were entered >into the Committee record during our Committee hearings with >Attorney General Janet Reno on December 9 under a unanimous >consent request by Mr. Shays. Here is a copy of the page from the >transcript. Mr. Lantos chaired that hearing. > >Yesterday on the House floor, Mr. Waxman said that we have spent >over $6 million on this investigation. Again, he is wrong. He >hasn't checked the facts. He isn't even in the ballpark. In fact, >this Committee spent less than $2.5 million on this investigation >last year. 25% of that was given to Mr. Waxman's staff. I think >most of his money was spent writing letters to me. > >A lot of these allegations and accusations are meant to distract >our attention from the real issue -- determining who was >responsible for the millions of dollars in foreign money and >illegal contributions made during the last campaign. But we will >not be distracted. > >I believe that there are probably some people at the White House >and at the DNC who hope that we will not begin to immunize some >of these witnesses. I am sure that there are more than a few >people who are not upset at the wall of silence. But we have a >job to do. We must begin to tear down the wall. We have an >obligation to get to the truth. The American people have a right >to know. > >We have honorable men and women on both sides of this Committee. >There is no question about that. It is time to set aside the >distractions and the side issues. It is time to start getting the >facts out. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle >will support immunity for these witnesses. The Justice Department >has no objections, and neither should we. > > >Published in the Apr. 27, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly >Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) >Reposting permitted with this message intact > >========================================================================== >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 -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Post-Breakdown Militia/Survival Communication (fwd) Date: 27 Apr 1998 12:22:49 PST On Apr 27, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From J.J. Johnson: Unlimited re-distribution is hereby granted and encouraged. This article is submitted as guide to develop, build and maintain an effective network of radio and digital communications among like-minded individuals. Much of what will be discussed has been created in other areas of the country. Here in Nevada and southern California, we will seek to use these principles in creating a method of un-interruptible communication. Many of you are aware of these concepts. I am not trying to re-invent the wheel, nor I am trying to dictate what's best for you. Those who have better or different ideas are encouraged to share with others. But before we get started, a word about Knob Creek: Many will be shocked to here this from J.J. Johnson, but it was reported that Dave Rydel was to have Lawrence Meyers address the Knob Creek gathering and give a seminar on HAM communications, encryption, etc. Regardless of past actions, I do not believe Dave Rydel could have selected a more qualified person on the subject than Meyers. There...I said it. Meyers has written at least two soft cover manuals on communications and electronic counter-measures that I would consider a "mandatory purchase" and "must read" to anyone who is serious about this subject. They are titled "SPYCOMM" and "IMPROVISED RADIO JAMMING TECHNIQUES". Another recently published book I would strongly suggest is "Emergency Survival Communications" by Dave Ingram. With that said, the various reports I have read about the Knob Creek meetings was the best example of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" that I have ever seen. A national meeting of this type should be one that the press, federal agents, and even ADL members could attend, and it wouldn't make a difference. After all, they were probably there anyway. If there is another meeting, I would suggest those in attendance to stick to the subject of communications and networking. That way, no one has to worry about who the "fed" is, and it's something that everyone can agree on.(There is a message for Rydel and associates at the end of this article) NOTE: I recently wrote an article entitled "Rules of Engagement" that addressed many of these issues. I would suggest that those who left Knob Creek in a somewhat "state-of-disillusionment" read that article again. ...And with that said, let's talk radios. *** Without having any federal budget numbers in front of me, I could make a safe bet that the U.S. Department of Defense has spent more money over the last few decades for communication equipment than they have for weapons systems. There is a reason for this. Any military commander will tell you that as long as his men have and good supply of FUEL and INFORMATION, he can keep moving toward his objective. Communication is the foundation of the latter. Fuel, or "energy" is the subject for a future article. 1) Necessity A National communication network is needed in the event that normal communications fail. This could be caused any man-made or natural disasters that could strike at any time. Issues that we should be concerned about the most are: Y2K, emergency operations, and a military apparatus that has been all but decimated (I'm sure you've read the recent articles on this). Any of these could lead to a situation where telephone ,shortwave, and even satellite communications would be lost. A backup-system must be in place. Since most human being don't work well under severe stress, the time to create this system is NOW, and not AFTER all hell breaks lose. If a stand-off or siege happens (which is almost daily nowadays), even a minimal communication network can save a person's life. 2) Equipment needed After numerous discussions with HAM and other communication experts, we believe the best solution is for as many people as possible to obtain 11 meter (CB), 2 meter, and 10 meter communications gear. The last two require an FCC HAM License. Of course, there will be a huge debate and disagreement on this. I will address those concerns in the next section. First, I will explain the reasons for the use of each. a) 11 meter (CB Radio) is the best for road travel and local neighborhood watch programs. They are in-expensive. But keep in mind that in an emergency, when the phone lines go down, you will find these frequencies jammed with traffic. Where we are, it is all but impossible to communicate locally with CBs due to interference from high powered stations in Mexico during daylight hours. In a social/economic emergency, CBs will be virtually useless during the day outside of a 1-mile range, Base station CBs should be equipped with at least 100 watts of amplification with quality antennas. We stress that everyone invest in at least one CB radio in their vehicles. Remember: Linear amps are illegal so long as the FCC is around to enforce those laws. b) 2-meter rigs are more expensive radios, but less traffic will make communications clearer. 2-meter gear should be powered enough to reach the nearest repeater station. 2-meter can also be used for PACKET radio, which would have to replace the internet if and when the telephone network is interrupted. For the best information on this packet, see: http//www.sedan.org. 2-meter also give us the ability to link up with other networks around the country if necessary - provided all repeaters are in operation. NOTE: Dual band 2-meter/440 Mhz is preferred, but may be cost prohibitive. c) 10 meter systems with the proper antenna and powering equipment is the best for long distance communications. Sure, other frequency ranges are better, but we conclude that 10 meter is best for the money. It has the advantage of using the same type of antenna system as CB- thus saving cost. During the daylight hours, these signals can reach for hundreds of miles with little interference. All hand-held radio should be checked for microphone and speaker input jacks. If someone tries to sell you a hand held portable radio that do not have these functions, don't buy it. This is the start. Our advice: BUY THESE THINGS. Ask around if you don't know what to buy. Hopefully, we can create our frequency allocations tables using these frequency spectrums in the next few months. Right now, we urge people of like mind to obtain this equipment before it becomes unavailable (or before we all stop talking to one another). Also consider microphone and speaker headsets, quality antennas and good scanners. Knowing full well that the subjects outlined have been argued time and time again, I will list the major concerns and try to calm those fears. 1) Too expensive. Go back to the statement I made about the DOD spending more money for comm systems than they do on weapons systems. What am I saying? If you are one of those people who believe that having 20 or so guns in your home is enough to keep America free, you are naive. How many guns can you and your family fire with just two hands? And what good is your gun if you don't know what's coming at you? How will you call for help? No, I am not telling you to dis-arm yourself, but you may consider selling at least one of your firearms. The price of one AK-47 or AR-15 could purchase all the items listed above and more. If you can't spare a rifle, try to squeeze at least some commo gear into your emergency food budget. A base, mobile, or hand held unit alone could save your life in the event of a stand-off or siege, not to mention the rest of your second amendment hardware. You'll notice that when they come for your house, they cut the lines of communication long before they ever go for your guns. Why? For the same reason that the U.S Military destroyed the Iraqi reconnaissance radar installations long before they bombed Baghdad - and their first target in Baghdad was the phone company. Take a lesson from the experts. 2) The adversary can listen to our communications. They do that now. If fact there are numerous federal agencies dedicated to monitoring ALL frequencies - and the internet. By the way, even if Phil Zimmermann (father of PGP) sold out to the feds, it's irrelevant. Without having a copy of the random data you used to create your keys, it takes too long to break the code.(That's from and NSA and bank security expert). Decryption is TIME SENSITIVE. Remember that. Ever heard of encryption? This is also illegal on radio frequencies as long as the FCC is around to enforce these laws. In the event of a national emergency , foreign occupation or governmental collapse, a simple Morse code system of TAC-OP codes embedded in cryptograms can be transmitted over open lines that only the desired recipients can decode. That's right - not even that old CRAY 4 computer or Phil Z can break it. This may sound technical, but it's not. I found this information in a book written by Lawrence Meyers. For short distance(hand held and mobile communications), scramblers can be built, if not purchased. The circuitry is quite simple and it's something we should have been doing for a long time. Remember: decrypting signals is a time-sensitive business. During some emergency operations, one may not even need to encrypt signals. If the adversary cannot figure out what has been transmitted in a certain amount of time and why, his electronic counter-measures are useless. 3) They can jam the signals. Of course they can. And we can located the exact location of such counter-measures and deal with it as necessary. Sure beats sitting around and talking about who's a fed and who's the newest member of the Council on Foreign Relations, doesn't it?. In some cases, your adversary will not want to jam your signal. That way they can listen to what your saying. And If worse case comes, most of the socialist idiots will be so nuts that they'll have to listen to us for instructions on how to stay alive. Using this network, we can discuss how we would use non-electronic communications, in case this event (jamming) would take place. These strategies could also be openly discussed openly at national, state, and local meetings. 4) Obtaining an FCC license is bowing to the Federal Government. That's right, it is. I'll also add that they will have your address in their computer - along with the 700,000 HAMs, and 10 million other people they will have to track down. This is assuming you give the correct address of your base station equipment when obtaining your license. Taking a HAM test forces you to learn a few things about radio communication you'll need to know, anyway. And in the event of an emergency, your equipment can be moved. It's a small price to pay, people. If you and your friends choose to buy HAM gear and use it without obtaining a license, you'll will find yourselves in hostile territory with other licensed HAMs who self-police those frequencies. You might also find HAMS who are on the air for the same reason you are. Don't rock the boat on this one. The more HAMs there are, the more frequencies the FCC will allocate for everyone. 5) National networks are out there, but they are just being "quiet" until the time is right. Don't give me that garbage! The most experienced HAMS in this movement can't find these underground networks (and if they were there, they would find them). And even if they do exist, they won't be of much good to anyone else, not to mention your adversary will have no trouble finding out about this network once it is in operation. For those who have these underground national radio comm nets, would you mind telling the rest us what channel you will use when your little covenant community is surrounded and you need help, or would you rather wait until after it happens? I'm not asking you to give up all your secrecy, but at least have a separate distinct national network we can work together on. Once again, I am not trying to re-invent the wheel. but trying to make sure the wheel is well-lubricated - and round. 6) We'd rather not communicate with you people - we'll just work on our own. That's fine. But you might want to at least know where we'll be for information purposes. Just don't key-up the mike. Meanwhile, if you've got any info that could help out in the long run, we'd be glad to hear it. 7) The adversary can shut off the HAM repeater towers. I covered this subject in my article "Y2K and the Power Grid". This is another area where having a HAM license could be a benefit. Many HAMs have set up there own repeater stations. When ever the cell phone service and pager service goes down, the towers may still work for other communications. And if there is damage to these towers, and there's no one around to maintain them, wouldn't you like to know how to get that tower working again, not to mention the tower locations? Now there's some intel worth hunting for. Remember this: Your adversary needs the power grid and the phone networks to stay up-and-running more than you do. They will have to use the media to control the masses. In some cases, FEMA will also require assistance from HAM operators. Need I say more? 8) If everyone does this, the system will become clogged and the adversary will infiltrate it. My belief is that most people will NOT do this. We will only need one or two long distance stations per survival community. the local population will soon learn that this station will be the outlet for their long distance communications. As for infiltrators, they will show themselves by the amount of dis-information and unwarranted communications they transmit. A policy must be developed to remove such persons from the network, and change any code-key systems thereafter. 9) I don't like his/her beliefs, and I won't work with them. Nobody ever said you had to *like* the other person, but if our common goal is SURVIVAL, what is there to fight over? Besides for those who enjoy yelling and screaming at each other, let's build a stand-by network so we can keep fighting amongst ourselves even after the phones line go down. Shall we? After all folks, it might save a life - ours. *** I'm sure there will be more controversy, but I hoped I've addressed most of it. Once the type of equipment is agreed upon, the next task will be to setup frequency & time allocations, and exchange locations. Network cells for long distance should have there borders determined by geographic location, not just state boundaries. For instance, where we are in southern Nevada, southern California will have to be considered part of our area network. But northern Nevada must consider the input of Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and Northern California. areas that work together must be grouped by natural boundaries such as mountains, hill, rivers, lakes, distance, and of course - base station power output. Sounds too technical? Well, then we've got some book work to do. No one person has all the answers. But if we cannot or will not put the brains the God gave us together and come up with something, then we'll get what we deserve. This network has to be dynamic, not static. Complex, but simple enough that a 12 year old can understand it. Different frequencies must be used at different times. There is no way we can all work on one channel. Local network must create themselves. States should create the own nets based on their local equipment. The State networks must integrate themselves into one national network. This has to be a bottom-up project. One important topic the national network must focus on is a universal mapping grid system. Folks who aren't tech-minded can work on this project. HINT: For starters, see http://www.topoguide.com Volunteers who wish to administrate this networking project should create a few web sites (or mail lists)for a central collection of data input. Once a policy is reached (by consensus or committee) that data should be made available to all. But please keep all political & religious viewpoints, covert operational strategies, and other such nonsense OFF of this web site or news group. It should be strictly communication. Strictly business. To get started, just imagine that the entire phone, and power grid has been shut down permanently, then ask you self, "How do we communicate?" Again this article was written as a guide, not a gospel. Many may have better ideas, or more established networks. We are asking for your input without violating your own security protocol. But remember, most of us are not rich, and therefore will not be able to afford purchasing state-of-the-art comm gear. Think practical. Can this be done? Can it work? Only if we want it to. For those willing to participate, Let's get to work. J.J. Johnson -citizen@mindspring.com _______________________________________________________ To Rydel and all other Knob Creek/ VFW Associates (and all others): The last Knob Creek meeting may have not gone as planned, but it gives an opportunity to learn from past mistakes, put all differences aside, and start over. I hope the April gathering won't be the last meeting. If the October meeting could be limited to the subjects listed above (communications and networking) and other related topics, I would fully endorse it, and would even encourage others to do the same. Between now and October, let the internet be used to discuss all options, followed by a vote of those in attendance to officially lay out the policies guidelines and procedures. This would encourage participation from all of the states and give the VFW gathering a sound foundation to work from. I would suggest all military rank, attitudes, and information about the latest accusation is left at the door. If no one leader can be trusted to administrate over this non-partisan gathering, then let someone else do it. I can personally think of several non-501 C3 pastors would could be best suited for this (provided their expenses were covered). That way, we could get away from the finger-pointing issues. That's who led the original Patriots. The time is come to stop pointing swords at each other. A working network of communication can and must be created which is void of accusations, ideologies, and name calling. Since we don't have much of a military left, a Y2K problem coming, and a government being openly handed over to the enemy, our country's future depends on it. Bury the hatchets, people.( J.J. Johnson) ____________________________________________________________________ My lines of communication are now open. citizen@mindspring.com -- I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means -- except by getting off his back. -- Leo Tolstoy [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metaksa (fwd) Date: 27 Apr 1998 18:24:29 PST On Apr 27, NRA Alerts wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] OPENING CLOSED DOORS Statement by Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa Executive Director National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action to the Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice Seventh Session Vienna, Austria April 27, 1998 Agenda Item 5: Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening of Legal Institutions Measures to Regulate Firearms ________________ Madame Chairperson, first let me congratulate you on the excellent job you have done in presiding over today's plenary session of the Commission. By way of introduction let me note that the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is the oldest, largest, most active organization in the world concerned with shooting sports and the rights of firearms owners. The NRA has over three million members worldwide and our organization actively lobbies in all fifty of the United States and in the U.S. Congress. The NRA has been an official Economical and Social Counsel non-governmental organization since 1996. In this capacity, we have assumed a leadership role in monitoring all international firearms regulations efforts. We attended all four of the regional workshops on firearms regulations as well as the sixth Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention. Today I should like to address three topics. First, the report of the Secretary General on "Measures to Regulate Firearms." Second, the resolutions regarding firearms which are being considered by this body. And finally, Madame Chairperson, perhaps the most important, the need for democratic reform of the method by which the UN conducts its business when considering issues which, by definition, constitute key elements of the domestic affairs of member states. Report of the Secretary General Having reviewed the report of the Secretary General on "Measures to Regulate firearms" [E/CN. 15/1998/4], we find it an incredible document. It is more aptly described as an un- credible document. I refer to the section sub-titled, "Conclusion of the Workshop." That is found in paragraphs 11 through 23 of the report. This is un-credible for two reasons: the substance of the conclusions and the process by which those conclusions were drawn. Let me list just a few of the so-called, "conclusions" more precisely, affronts to law-abiding possessors of firearms, good people not just of the United States of America but good people of nations around the world. * That hunters should be required to store their firearms in sporting clubs. * That the firearms used in hunting be sharply restricted and permitted for use only to protect wildlife. * That only smooth-bore firearms be permitted for protection of property or life. * That firearm owners establish a need before being allowed to possess firearms. * That firearms collectors be allowed to possess only those firearms which are non-functional. * That there be an upper-age-limit on the possession of firearms. * That firearms owners obtain insurance before being allowed to hunt. * That firearms possession be discouraged and that, if they must, individuals would be permitted to own one firearm at most. Madame Chair, we have in our hands a report issued by a group of people who have bent over backwards to avoid open processes -- processes designed to arrive at measured conclusions. Instead, we have witnessed closed processes which yield no measured conclusions at all, but radical proposals which strike at the core of freedoms we hold dear and a heritage which was passed on to us by our fathers and forefathers. These radical affronts may or may not have been actually discussed at the workshop. Indeed, this is the first time we and our government have heard of many of them. We monitored all four workshops, and we reviewed all published materials, but no verbatim records are kept of workshops. Most sessions were completely closed, even to the very people who have the most to lose. People like us. Citizens with rights. Citizens with something to say. Citizens with no way of verifying how radical proposals found their way into an official U.N. document. Madame, I will return to this point later, but for the record, permit me to make this observation: the U.N.'s tarnished reputation shall never brighten when its agencies cloak themselves in secrecy, when it insists on closing doors rather than opening doors when it masquerades radical proposals as blithe conclusions in officially bound documents. Resolutions under Consideration Let me hasten to add, Madame Chairperson, that we are extremely gratified that no resolution has been introduced for a "declaration of principles on firearm regulation." There has not been sufficient discussion of any such declaration. A resolution at this time would have premature at best. If this body chooses to proceed ahead with further efforts to tighten firearm regulation, we would request that all future meetings be open meetings. Now, action is being considered under the draft resolution. We would sincerely hope that the UN would listen to the pleas not just of the NRA, but of firearms owners worldwide. When we say that we want an opportunity to be heard, we are mindful that the issues we wish to discuss are considered vital by hundreds of millions of hunters, shooters, and lawful possessors of firearms. Democratic reforms of UN procedures Now, let's discuss our final point. Democratic reform of U.N. Procedures. We know and appreciate that the National Rifle Association of America is probably not the U.N.'s most popular Non- governmental Organization. We are fully aware that some have criticized the assertiveness with which we defend our position. I can assure you that our defense of our position will continue to be strong, vibrant and dynamic, so I believe we can predict with some certainty that, in the future, our critics will continue to complain about our effectiveness. That is fine, Madame Chair, for we are not thin-skinned. Indeed, we relish the give and take of a healthy political dialogue. What I want to emphasize today, however, goes far beyond the style with which we defend our freedom and our cultural heritage. It goes far beyond the words of our critics who complain about our assertive defense of our rights. Oh, no, at issue today is neither the style or the substance of this particular non- governmental organization. At issue today and for the foreseeable future is the style and substance of the United Nations itself. In the grand scheme of things, NRA's popularity is of no consequence. At issue is the U.N.'s commitment to an open, democratic process within its own agencies and institutions. Put bluntly, and I can see that our critics are now sitting up, paying closer attention, and taking copious notes put bluntly, how the U.N. treats the NRA is a major test for the U.N. Why? Because, in many ways, the NRA member is the quintessential average citizen. He, or she, is extraordinary, not because of their wealth or station in life, but because of the values they embody. Our members are from every major political party in our nation, men and women, young and old, all colors and creeds. What holds this diverse, dynamic group of people together, as members of a single association, is their shared values. NRA members are ordinary people who come together, because they cherish the values this association stands for: safety, individual responsibility, and freedom. Thus, the manner in which NRA is treated by the U.N. will be seen as emblematic of how the U.N. treats everyday citizens of every member-nation, all around the world, citizens whose lives and culture could be radically transformed by what you decide and how you go about deciding it. With the end of the Cold War, the UN is now engaged in myriad activities, peace-keeping, democracy- building, functions profoundly different from its earlier days. Now, Madame Chairperson, you are probably asking, how does this relate to the need for democratic reform in UN procedures? When the UN was mainly concerned with fulfilling its classic diplomatic role of preventing interstate wars of aggression, there was little necessity for citizens of members countries to have a voice in your deliberation. If and when the UN chooses to involve itself in issues which are domestic by nature, and this most definitely includes the firearms issue, the U.N.'s approach must change. Many criticize the U.N. for even delving into domestic issues; we will leave their valid criticisms for another time. Today, this much can and should be said: the U.N. cannot act in the classic diplomatic manner of governments talking to governments in a closed, restrictive process. The process must be democratic. If there are meetings, they must be opened. If there is information, it must be shared. If decisions are built on evidence and discussions, then all three -- evidence, discussions and resulting decisions -- all three must be made a matter of record. And, if there is a record, that record must be available to the public. Madame Chairperson, we have had a thorny relationship with the UN. The test for the UN is not how it relates to a group with which it feels compatible, but how it relates to groups who often take strong positions, positions some of you may find contrary. This is what democracy is all about. Our experience to date has not been good. One is tempted to say that, if you have found us assertive, I can assure you we have found your locked doors aggressive. Meetings have been closed when they should have been opened. Information was not furnished when it should have been furnished. Deliberations have been private when they should have been public. Madame Chairperson, let me conclude by saying that it is our intention to pursue through the appropriate channels two major reforms of UN procedures. In the USA, such approaches are often called "sunshine laws." Such laws open closed doors, so that all interested parties can observe and participate in the light of day. In U.N. parlance, they are known as "increased transparency." First, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action will seek an "open meeting" provision for the UN. Under such a provision, all official meetings of the UN will, with certain limited exceptions, be open to the public. Second, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action will seek a "public records" provision for the UN. Under this provision, all documents held by the UN will, with certain limited exceptions, be open to public examination. Our extraordinary, ordinary citizens who make up the NRA might put it this way: we want open, honest debate. We want freedom of information. We like town meetings, and we love democracy. And we think, in expressing those values, we have a lot of company. When this Commission meeting started, Pino Alaachi made a prophetic statement. He said, and I quote, Madame Chairperson, "Ultimately, we answer to citizens of the governments of the world." Indeed, Madame Chairperson, so do you. And, from one ordinary citizen who has the honor of speaking for millions of freedom-loving citizens of the United States of America, citizens who are as average as they are extraordinary, thank you for listening. =+=+=+=+ This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester <joesylvester@texoma.net> Subject: Re: US backs UN Gun Control (fwd) Date: 28 Apr 1998 01:43:14 -0500 At 10:28 AM 4/27/98 -0400, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:28:45 -0700 >Subject: US backs UN Gun Control > > >U.S. aims to shoot down illicit firearms trafficking > >Nation backs U.N. resolution for the first time > >The process alone, even before Friday, has been salutary, advocates of >domestic gun-control laws said. "It has encouraged governments to focus >on gun laws and adopt tougher ones," said Rebecca Peters, an Australian >who represented the International Alliance of Women. She said, for >example, that after the workshop in New Delhi, in January, Mongolia banned >the import of all firearms. > Excepting those brought in by the Chinese Army of Occupation, one would suppose. Sheesh, talk about a bad example for her side, and a "good" one for ours. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" <mckay003@maroon.tc.umn.edu> Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland <boyd@seanet.com> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Date: 28 Apr 1998 08:47:34 -0700 Ok, having read that I'm ready to hear from the usual suspects about how the NRA does not Kick Ass for the gun owners of the world. Thats right, after hearing Ms. Metaksa "take it to the mountain" I'd like all those critics who want to dump this astounding (albeit flawed) tool to just raise their hand here. Thank you. And a BIG thank you to TM for making my membership an honor. I'll enjoy continuing to work for the FNRA event in Bellevue Wa this friday. I'll be early to the Washington Libertarian convention (Sat. and Sun) where CLAW members will hand out copies of this speech and sign up -more- NRA members. And I'll work late each day at the Washington Arms Collectors show to set up and photograph the NRA auction. Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington. (CLAW) Text of Metaksa speech to UN deleted. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis <jcurtis@cisco.com> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Date: 28 Apr 1998 13:20:44 -0400 (EDT) > >Ok, having read that I'm ready to hear from the usual suspects about how >the NRA does not Kick Ass for the gun owners of the world. Thats right, >after hearing Ms. Metaksa "take it to the mountain" I'd like all those >critics who want to dump this astounding (albeit flawed) tool to just raise >their hand here. >Thank you. Ok, I'll confess. I've said some critical things about the NRA in the past. It certainly appears that Ms. Metaksa said the right things to the right people. If she can really pry those people loose from their undemocratic methods, then she ought to run for President. jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland <boyd@seanet.com> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Date: 28 Apr 1998 10:57:09 -0700 Well, dang John. I didn't think anybody would pay attention to my little hoo-rah. FWIW I too am critical of some of NRAs obvious screwups. Just felt like celebrating that particular good move on Tanyas and did not mean to point any fingers. Actually, looking at what else hit my email box with the latest looksee I see that the Judge in the Fezell face found NRA in contempt. The part of me that likes calling a spade a spade likes it but the part of me that cringes when I can feel the media warming up to show my friends shooting themselves in the foot is, well, cringing. B >> >>Ok, having read that I'm ready to hear from the usual suspects about how >>the NRA does not Kick Ass for the gun owners of the world. Thats right, >>after hearing Ms. Metaksa "take it to the mountain" I'd like all those >>critics who want to dump this astounding (albeit flawed) tool to just raise >>their hand here. >>Thank you. > > Ok, I'll confess. I've said some critical things about the > NRA in the past. It certainly appears that Ms. Metaksa said > the right things to the right people. If she can really pry those > people loose from their undemocratic methods, then she ought to run > for President. > > jcurtis > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: IRS witness urged by Fed Judge not to talk to Congress Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:38:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =============================================== [05] IRS Witness Urged Not To Go Public By ROB WELLS AP Tax Writer NEWSDAY WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Virginia restaurant owner who is suing the IRS for $20 million plans to testify before a Senate panel this week on IRS abuses despite a federal judge's angry complaints about excessive pretrial publicity of the case. U.S. District Judge J. Calvitt Clarke Jr. in Norfolk, Va., last year urged attorneys for John Colaprete, co-owner of the Jewish Mother restaurants in Virginia, to waive taxpayer confidentiality laws to let the Internal Revenue Service tell its side of the story in public. Clarke, upset that Colaprete and his lawyers were discussing details of the case in nationally televised interviews, said the publicity would prejudice potential jurors and threaten the IRS agents' right to a fair trial. Colaprete's tale of a botched raid by IRS and state agents will take center stage at a Senate Finance hearing Wednesday. The retired Marine, who doesn't have a criminal record, refused to grant the IRS a waiver of taxpayer confidentiality laws, saying the IRS wasn't trustworthy. Judge Clarke then took the unusual step of making public pretrial court records so the government's side could be presented. ``And there isn't any question about what ... your people are doing is all one-sided,'' Clarke said in an April 8, 1997 hearing, according to a transcript of the case. ``Why don't you dismiss these cases and go on and get your evens, get even in the press, and we can forget this suit?'' His comments were directed at Colaprete's attorney, Robert Haddad. Colaprete is scheduled to testify Wednesday about 1994 raids by IRS, Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and local police on the businesses and homes of the owners. The raids led to no criminal charges, even though agents carted away a truckload of records and equipment. Colaprete, co-owner Ted Bonk, former manager Scotty Miller and his family filed a federal lawsuit in 1996 against the agents who participated in the raid. The lawsuit alleges violation of their constitutional rights against improper seizure and due process. It accuses the agents of assault, false imprisonment and conducting illegal searches and seizures. In an interview Monday, Haddad recalled ``the hearing where Judge Clark yelled at us'' but defended his client's upcoming appearance before the Senate committee. ``He was invited. He didn't decide to testify,'' Haddad said. ``The bottom line is it was not something that we sought out.'' Haddad said the plaintiffs remain outraged at government allegations in court documents that there was about $20,000 in unreported income from the restaurants and marijuana was discovered at Colaprete's home during the raid. No drug charges were filed against Colaprete, and the business has cleared state and federal tax audits without any money owed, Haddad said. ``That's something else that caught us flat-footed,'' Haddad said of the marijuana allegation. ``It wasn't John's. He said, `I don't have drugs in my house.''' The case involves allegations that 20 agents, including the IRS and Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, accompanied by dogs, came through the front door of the Virginia Beach restaurant and told the manager they were closing the business. Raided at the same time was the Jewish Mother in Norfolk and the homes of two restaurant officials. The suit charges that agents interrupted a slumber party hosted by Miller's teen-age daughter at his house, rousted Miller from the shower at gunpoint and prevented him from calling his lawyer. =============================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Ken Starr's real conflict of interest, CHINA Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:06:18 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- not to be used for commercial purposes WorldNetDaily April 27/98 Joseph Farah Kenneth Starr's real conflict of interest ====================================================================== The vast left-wing conspiracy to protect President Clinton has a new defense strategy. Now that it has effectively neutralized congressional opposition and press criticism, the Clinton attack machine has focused most of its wrath on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr by suggesting he has a conflict of interest. For once I would like to agree with the defend-Clinton-at-any- cost crowd. Starr does have a conflict of interest. But it's not illusory ties to conservative millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Rather Starr's conflict is that he has strong links with the same foreign powers suspected of corrupting this administration. There is not a doubt in my mind, given the way Starr has botched his investigation of Clinton every step of the way, that the independent counsel is serving interests other than justice. While Starr is being denounced by Clinton administration officials as a "right-wing extremist," he is, in fact, part of the same insider political establishment that backs Bill Clinton's selling of this country down the Yangtse River. As Strategic Investment reported last year, one of Starr's largest law clients is the China International Trust and Investment Corp., or CITIC, a ministry-level corporation owned by the Chinese government and reporting directly to the State Council of the People's Republic of China. The chairman of CITIC is Wang Jun, who also heads Poly Group Corp., the major arms trading section of the People's Liberation Army. Poly Group was the company caught trying smuggle 2,000 automatic weapons into the United States aboard a China Overseas Shipping Co., or COSCO, vessel last year. This is a conflict far more glaring in its appearance than Starr's connections with American tobacco companies and General Motors. For it is Clinton's relationship with China that is more disturbing and more threatening to the vital national security interests of this country than his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It's an open secret now that millions of dollars flowed illegally into the Clinton-Gore campaign and into the coffers of the Democratic National Committee from Chinese and other mysterious Asian sources during the 1996 election campaign. Two years later, we can now ask what those dollars may have purchased. The answer is to that question is apparently anything China wanted. For instance, was anyone prosecuted for the attempt to import those automatic weapons into the United States so they could be sold to L.A. street gangs? No. Why not? This administration is hell-bent on denying law-abiding Americans with even semi- automatic weapons. You would think Clinton and company would be outraged that a foreign company would try to smuggle these actual "assault weapons" into the states. Why wasn't there a peep of protest from the White House? Why didn't the federal government make an example of the Poly Group and their collaborators in COSCO? More recently, of course, The New York Times exposed the way the Loral Corp. was cleared personally by the president of any wrongdoing in providing the Chinese with technology that will sharpen the aim of their nuclear missiles targeted on the United States of America. Loral's boss was the largest individual contributor to the DNC in 1996. Remember, this was the administration which came to power criticizing President Bush's all-too-cozy relationship with China. Yet, it quickly adopted Bush's policy of granting "Most Favored Nation" status to the brutes in Beijing. Then there was the decision by the Department of Commerce to reclassify formerly restricted military technology for supercomputers, radiation- resistant computer chips, satellite geo-positioners, submarine and stealth technology, high-tech missile engine tools and more. U.S. companies have been selling all of these items to the Chinese ever since. The China scandal, of course, is one that threatens to cut in bipartisan fashion. Senior politicians from both major political parties serve as unregistered lobbyists for the Chinese government. They include Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, Mickey Cantor and Robert Strauss. In addition, some of the nation's largest banks, multinational corporations and financial institutions are promoting even cozier ties with Beijing as a recipe for economic growth over the next decade -- human rights, freedom and national security be damned. So when the left-wing conspiracy theorists ask you why a "right- wing Republican" like Kenneth Starr would hesitate to go for the jugular in his investigation of the president, now you have some answers. ========================================================================== 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: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Ex-Teamsters official indicted for bribe to Democrats Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:41:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [06] Ex-Teamsters official indicted By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES A federal grand jury indicted the Teamsters' former political director yesterday on charges of giving $1.1 million in union funds to the Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO and liberal advocacy groups so they would launder portions into the re-election campaign of Teamsters President Ron Carey. The indictment was handed up just hours after James P. Hoffa --who blames the money-laundering scheme for his 1996 loss to Mr. Carey -- was cleared by a federal election officer to seek the presidency in a rerun election. William W. Hamilton Jr., who controlled the union's powerful political action committee until his resignation in July, was charged with embezzlement, conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, perjury and making false statements to a federal election officer. If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. "Bill is innocent of all charges and we look forward to his day in court," said his attorney, Robert Gage. Mr. Hamilton -- a former Planned Parenthood spokesman who once ridiculed Mother Teresa's opposition to abortion in a letter published by The Washington Post -- joined the Teamsters in early 1995, bringing with him a commitment to liberal activism that contrasted sharply with the union's previous support of Presidents Reagan and Bush. "Mr. Hamilton had an expansive and pro-active view of the [Teamsters'] role in politics and in mobilizing its membership for political action, a view shared by Mr. Carey," Barbara Zack Quindel, a former federal election officer, wrote last year. Mr. Hamilton's own records show that he emptied the coffers of the Teamsters' political action committee, known as DRIVE, tapped the general treasury and even secured a $500,000 bank loan so the union could keep giving money to Democrats in the 1996 elections. "We have to recommend to our members, semantics aside, that they vote for Bill Clinton, not Bob Dole," Mr. Hamilton told Teamsters Communications Director Matt Witt in a March 1996 memo. "We ask for and get, on almost a daily basis, help from the Clinton administration for one thing or another. In the absence of a better candidate, it doesn't make sense to complicate our ability to continue doing so." The Clinton administration even agreed to "lean on" railroad executives who might ask union workers for concessions, Mr. Hamilton wrote in another memo. Later in the year, Mr. Hamilton schemed with Carey campaign manager Jere Nash and campaign aides Martin Davis and Michael Ansara to launder union funds into Mr. Carey's re-election bid, the indictment says. He diverted unprecedented sums to the AFL-CIO and liberal advocacy groups -- including Citizen Action, Project Vote and the National Council of Senior Citizens -- all of which kicked back portions of the money into the Carey campaign, prosecutors said. Mr. Hamilton also directed $236,500 to various state Democratic parties in exchange for a $100,000 contribution to the Carey campaign that was to be arranged by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. The Democrats lined up a donor who sent the check, but the Carey campaign sent it back because the donor was an employer and thus barred by election rules from contributing. Last year, the money-laundering scandal was uncovered by Hoffa aides, including spokesman Richard Leebove, who fed evidence to FBI agents and federal prosecutors. A grand jury was convened and, on April 14, 1997, questioned Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton made "29 false declarations when questioned concerning the [Teamsters'] contributions to Citizen Action and Project Vote, and Hamilton's and Nash's roles in those contributions," the office of U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in New York said in a statement yesterday. Those declarations are the basis for the perjury charge. On July 29, Mr. Hamilton resigned from the Teamsters, saying he would no longer cooperate with Mrs. White's investigation, which he called "a circus." "I admit to doing everything I could do last year to try to re-elect the president and defeat Newt Gingrich's congressional majority," Mr. Hamilton wrote in his resignation letter to Mr. Carey. "I also did what I could to help you win re-election and continue to reform this union." On Sept. 18, Nash, Davis and Ansara pleaded guilty in the money-laundering scheme and agreed to cooperate in Mrs. White's investigation. The results of the election were nullified and Mr. Carey, who also has been implicated in the scandal, was barred from participating in the rerun election. Yesterday, federal election officer Michael Cherkasky cleared the way for Mr. Hoffa to seek the presidency but fined his campaign for minor fund-raising violations. Mr. Cherkasky also barred Mr. Leebove from working for Teamsters candidates until the rerun election is completed later this year. Mr. Cherkasky said Mr. Leebove made an improper in-kind contribution to the Hoffa campaign by underbilling it by $167,675. Mr. Leebove called the ruling retaliation by the election office, which he said was embarrassed by its failure to detect the money-laundering scandal. Mr. Leebove also said Mr. Cherkasky was seeking personal revenge against him for telling reporters earlier this year that the election officer once accepted questionable campaign donations when he sought unsuccessfully to become district attorney of Westchester County, N.Y. After news reports on the contributions, the New York State Board of Elections began an inquiry. Mr. Cherkasky yesterday denied accepting improper contributions. He also said his punishment of Mr. Leebove was based on evidence, not revenge. =============================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: One (UN) Nation is Clintons politics per Sidney Blumenthal Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:44:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Inside Politics News and political dispatches from around the nation By Greg Pierce THE WASHINGTON TIMES One-nation politics Sidney Blumenthal, the White House aide who first divined the vast right-wing conspiracy, apparently outdid himself in a speech last week at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. When a questioner ridiculed his conspiracy ideas, Mr. Blumenthal replied: "Is there a right wing? Absolutely. Is it out to get the president? Absolutely." Boston Globe reporter Peter S. Canellos said Mr. Blumenthal, besides bashing independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr "in fierce terms," took the opportunity to define President Clinton's ideology. Mr. Clinton's purpose is to "create a new social contract for a global economy in which opportunity is widened. ... If there is a name for the Clinton approach as a politics, this is it: one-nation politics," Mr. Blumenthal said. But the presidential adviser warned of "hostile forces that seek to confound and destroy one-nation politics and all that it promises." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metaksa (fwd) Date: 28 Apr 1998 17:10:39 -0400 (EDT) If I thought that arguing our case before the U.N. was appropriate, I'd have to agree that she did a great job. However, by participating in UN fora, we imply that we think the U.N. is legitimate and that it has our approval in its efforts to extend its "global governance" over us. It isn't and it doesn't. I'd feel just as queasy had she argued for our interests before the assembled multitudes of the Aryan Nations or the Taliban. IMNSDHO, of course. bd On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Boyd Kneeland wrote: > Ok, having read that I'm ready to hear from the usual suspects about how > the NRA does not Kick Ass for the gun owners of the world. Thats right, > after hearing Ms. Metaksa "take it to the mountain" I'd like all those > critics who want to dump this astounding (albeit flawed) tool to just raise > their hand here. > Thank you. > > And a BIG thank you to TM for making my membership an honor. I'll enjoy > continuing to work for the FNRA event in Bellevue Wa this friday. I'll be > early to the Washington Libertarian convention (Sat. and Sun) where CLAW > members will hand out copies of this speech and sign up -more- NRA members. > And I'll work late each day at the Washington Arms Collectors show to set > up and photograph the NRA auction. > > Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington. (CLAW) > > > Text of Metaksa speech to UN deleted. > > > > - > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metak Date: 28 Apr 1998 18:25:31 +0500 > From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metaksa (fwd) > If I thought that arguing our case before the U.N. was appropriate, I'd > have to agree that she did a great job. However, by participating in UN > fora, we imply that we think the U.N. is legitimate and that it has our > approval in its efforts to extend its "global governance" over us. > > It isn't and it doesn't. The UN is sufficiently legitimate that they're willy-nilly in the process of closing down the global small arms markets with resulting major damage to our domestic arms producers. Likewise, they're legitimate enough that they're on the verge of passing resolutions - for now - that will force the US further into the pariah corner in terms of domestic gun ownership. To say that your lack of belief in their "legitimacy" somehow makes Tanya's efforts in that arena irrelevant is akin to sticking your head in the sand, IMO. Personally, I do not believe BATF is a legitimate organization either - but they're the ones I have to send my fees to and the ones whose forms I have to use when I sell a gun. Now, in a perfect world.. *but we ain't in one!* Best, Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metak Date: 29 Apr 1998 08:11:38 -0400 (EDT) On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Brad Alpert wrote: > > > From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> > > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > > Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metaksa (fwd) > > > If I thought that arguing our case before the U.N. was appropriate, I'd > > have to agree that she did a great job. However, by participating in UN > > fora, we imply that we think the U.N. is legitimate and that it has our > > approval in its efforts to extend its "global governance" over us. > > > > It isn't and it doesn't. > > The UN is sufficiently legitimate that they're willy-nilly in the > process of closing down the global small arms markets with resulting > major damage to our domestic arms producers. Likewise, they're > legitimate enough that they're on the verge of passing resolutions - > for now - that will force the US further into the pariah corner in > terms of domestic gun ownership. > > To say that your lack of belief in their "legitimacy" somehow makes > Tanya's efforts in that arena irrelevant is akin to sticking your > head in the sand, IMO. Personally, I do not believe BATF is a > legitimate organization either - but they're the ones I have to send > my fees to and the ones whose forms I have to use when I sell a gun. > > Now, in a perfect world.. > > *but we ain't in one!* > > Best, > > Brad > There are two reasons why I would choose to obey/cooperate with an institution of authority: (1.) Because it is "legitimate" (That is, at least in some vague way, we have granted it authority run our affairs and I want to support it or (2.) because it is sufficiently powerful to compel my behavior The U.S. judicial system might still qualify as an example of #1. As demonstrated at Waco, the BATF meets the second criterion. The BATF is here and you have to deal with them as they command or they will kill you. The U.N. doesn't have that kind of power *yet* and its legitimacy should be opposed so that it doesn't get it. IMHO, of course. Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> Subject: One tiny example why the UN is illegitimate, should be opposed Date: 29 Apr 1998 08:46:27 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Wednesday, April 29, 1998 The New World Information Order Last October, heavily armed NATO "peacekeepers" seized four radio and television transmitters controlled by Bosnian Serbs. The United States and its Western allies are now so proud of their action that they are creating a tribunal with the power to shut down radio and TV stations and punish newspapers engaged in undermining "peace." The NATO forces, which we must remember are under the command of the United Nations, not the United States, say the new powers will be used to stop what they call "poisonous propaganda." Western officials involved in organizing the speech police unit said it would monitor what news organizations publish and broadcast to determine whether they meet "internationally accepted standards." And just what are those standards? Where are they written? What code of ethics will the U.N. enforce? Well, there isn't one, exactly. The New World Information Order is sort of making up the rules as it goes. But news organizations had better be careful, because warnings, fines and revocation of licenses -- not to mention armed seizure of transmitters, presses and property -- are coming, all in the name of peace, harmony and tranquility. "Basically there's a tradition here of propaganda in the class of Goebbels," explained Simon Haselock, a spokesman for the civilian operations of the "peacekeeping" force. "What we're trying to do is put in place a regime that offers a legal framework that improves and guarantees press freedom. It's not about censorship. This is all pretty groundbreaking." It's groundbreaking, all right -- for a new fascism. I'd like to remind Mr. Haselock that it was Goebbels and his Nazi friends who practiced the fine art of shutting down voices of opposition in the press -- not Europe's liberators. A State Department official who requested anonymity told The New York Times: "There are obvious free-speech concerns, but we need to put in place something to deal with the abuses of the media -- the hate, the racial epithets and ethnic slurs." Doesn't this sound familiar? Wasn't it this administration that, not too long ago, was complaining about "hate radio" right here in the United States? Is there any doubt that if such a plan is deemed effective in Bosnia it will be employed elsewhere by the new global hierarchy? "It is intended that this should take place with sufficient speed to ensure the provision of free, balanced, unbiased and pluralist information prior to the September 1998 elections, thereafter to ensure that Western democratic standards governing the media are permanently embedded," explains a draft charter of the "intervention tribunal," newspeak for thought police. Forgive my skepticism, but isn't the whole concept of Western press freedom based on the notion that people have an inalienable right to express themselves without fear of coercion by government -- be it foreign or domestic? Best of all, guess who's paying for this plan? You've got it. It will cost $2.7 million this year, and your tax dollars will cover the lion's share of the budget. The pseudo-intellectual foundation for this international experiment in the suppression of dangerous ideas was laid out a few months ago in the winter issue of Foreign Affairs, the influential journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Jamie M. Metzl, a former U.N. human rights officer, threw out the idea that it's time for his old employer to create a special "jam squad" or "independent information intervention unit" that could be dispatched to crisis points around the world, carrying equipment to block "harmful" radio and TV broadcasts. Already, NATO and the U.N. are taking the idea one step further -- employing brute force to shut down newspapers and broadcast operations of the "politically incorrect." Bosnia has long been regarded by the internationalists as a testing ground for the New World Order. It's a laboratory for the most hideous experiments in forcible social engineering. Interestingly, one of the main reasons NATO's international army is enforcing these new curbs on freedom of expression is because of their objections to being characterized as "fascists" by Bosnian Serb propagandists. Well, if you act like fascists, you'd better be prepared to be called fascists. If you can't stand the heat, get out of Bosnia. While this latest misadventure should offer persuasive evidence that Bosnia represents a severely misguided mission, rather it demonstrates just how easy it is to convince some Westerners that freedom is not really a God-given right, but a privilege granted or revoked by force of arms. Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Will America Be Caught in Clinton's 'Web'? -- April 1998 (fwd) Date: 29 Apr 1998 08:06:17 -0500 (CDT) ----- Begin Included Message ----- Will America Be Caught in Clinton's 'Web'? What Clinton Told the UN President Bill Clinton made a major speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 1997 in which he set forth his hopes for the future. It didn't get much ink then, but it's very important in explaining his world view and how his various foreign policy initiatives mesh together into a consistent plan. Clinton used the metaphor "web," and it is very apt. He described the series of treaties he has signed and sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification as a "web of institutions and arrangements" that has set "the international ground rules for the 21st century," and he urged Americans to support what he called "the emerging international system." Clinton enthusiastically described the treaties which are locking the United States into a network of global entanglements: the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Chemical Weapons Convention, "binding international commitments to protect the environment" (i.e,, the Global Warming Treaty), and the NATO Expansion Treaty. Since Clinton's speech, this rosy picture has been somewhat tarnished. The WTO decision against Eastman Kodak was followed by a layoff of 16,000 employees, people are asking why the Chemical Weapons Treaty doesn't protect us against Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons, and the Global Warming Treaty is being ridiculed as hot air. In his UN speech, Clinton spoke with gusto about what he called "this new global era." He said, "The forces of global integration are a great tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things. But we must decide what will be left in its wake." All of a sudden it appears that the "established order of things" being washed away is our right to decide how to spend American tax dollars. According to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, global integration requires us to spend tens of billions of U.S. dollars to bail out the bad loans made by the big U.S. banks to corrupt Asian regimes. "Before the century ends," Clinton told the UN, "we should establish a permanent international court to prosecute the most serious violations of humanitarian law." That means that Clinton's "web" includes a global court empowered to invent and adjudicate a new system of "humanitarian law" made by persons unknown. "Just last week," Clinton told the UN, "we lost some of our finest sons and daughters in a crash of a UN helicopter in Bosnia. Five were Americans, five were Germans, one Polish and one British; all citizens of the world we are trying to make." When those five Americans joined our armed services, they had no inkling that they would be transformed by presidential ukase from American citizen soldiers defending U.S. national security into "citizens of the world" and then called upon to give their lives to "make" Clinton's new global world. "The United Nations must play a leading role in this effort," Clinton said, "filling in the fault lines of the new global era." He defined the UN mission as taking over peace, security, human rights, eliminating poverty, and "sustainable development" (the code word for global control of energy consumption). Clinton concluded his UN speech by telling us that it is "necessary to imagine a future that is different from the past, necessary to free ourselves from destructive patterns of relations with each other and within our own nations and live a future that is different from the past." He didn't define what will be "different" about our future, but it clear from the text and tone of the entire speech that the principal difference will be submerging what he called our "poisoned nationalism" into a "web" of global organizations. Exploring Clinton's mind further, let's look at his remarks made the following month, on October 17, 1997, in Buenos Aires to Argentine reporters. "What I'm trying to do is to promote a process of reorganization of the world so that human beings are organized in a way that takes advantage of the new opportunities of this era." Hear that again! Clinton says he is trying to achieve a "reorganization of the world" so that "human beings are organized"! The scope of this global goal staggers the imagination. Continuing his remarks to Argentine reporters, Clinton added, "If we can prove that you can merge integrated economies and integrated democracies, then we'll be more likely to build a global system of this kind." It's clear that the "kind" of a "global system" that Clinton is trying to "build" will be based on merging "integrated" economies and democracies. The notion of integrating the United States, either our economy or our democracy, into a "global system" has never been cleared with the American people. So how come Clinton is announcing it to Argentineans? In describing his plans, Clinton is much more forthright in talking to foreigners than he is with Americans. When Tim Russert asked Bill Clinton on NBC's Meet the Press what he hopes his legacy will be, Clinton responded immediately by talking about his "global" aspirations. Americans had better get busy if we want to stop Clinton's "inexorable" march toward global "integration." ______________________________________________________ Our latest Alert: Questions to Ask Your Senator About NATO Expansion http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/98-04-24/98-04-24_nato.html Call your two U.S. Senators and tell them to vote NO on NATO Expansion! 1-800-504-0031 or 1-202-224-3121 Senate debate starts Monday - tune in to C-SPAN 2 Senate E-mail: http://www.eagleforum.org/vote/sen-email.html SUPPORT EAGLE FORUM! To receive the Phyllis Schlafly ReportHARDCOPY -- Subscription: $20 per year Send check or money order to: Eagle Forum * P.O. Box 618 * Alton * IL 62002 Eagle Forumhttp://www.eagleforum.org PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org Alton, IL62002 Phone: 618-462-5415Fax: 618-462-8909 To subscribe to Eagle E-mail please e-maileagle@eagleforum.org with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metak Date: 29 Apr 1998 08:26:00 +0500 Brad Dolan: > The U.S. judicial system might still qualify as an example of #1. > As demonstrated at Waco, the BATF meets the second criterion. The BATF is > here and you have to deal with them as they command or they will kill you. > The U.N. doesn't have that kind of power *yet* and its legitimacy should > be opposed so that it doesn't get it. IMHO, of course. Absolutely agree that the UN should be opposed on every front possible. Likewise, their evil machinations on behalf of banning guns should be opposed, also - and it seems to me that the only way to do that now is to fight the effort in the belly of the beast. Ignoring them won't make them go away any more than ignoring the machinations of a nascent political movement called the National Socialist Party made it go away. What am I missing? Best, Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: IP: Farah:Americans target of U.N. Criminal Court? (fwd) Date: 29 Apr 1998 10:25:21 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Americans target of U.N. Criminal Court?=20 New report says Clinton plan risks violating Constitution=20 By Joseph Farah =A9 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 Bacre Waly N'diaye of Senegal, a United Nations "special rapporteur for extrajudicial summary or arbitrary execution," toured the United States at the invitation of the State Department last year to investigate the way America applied the death penalty.=20 His report to the U.N. Human Rights Commission concluded the U.S. was "arbitrary" in its use of executions and called for a moratorium on the practice.=20 Later, the U.N.'s World Court tried to stop the state of Virginia from executing a foreign national, Angel Francisco Breard, convicted of murder. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright supported the plea, though the execution was carried out.=20 Was this an aberration, or a sign of things to come? Opponents of an expansion of the U.N.'s authority over the enforcement of "international law" and world courts fear this is just the beginning.=20 The United Nations is meeting in Rome in June to draft a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court that could subject American citizens to the jurisdiction of foreign judges with no respect for the Constitution, charges a new report by the American Sovereignty Project.=20 Though the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirms a right to trial by jury, there will be no such right before the ICC, according to the author of the report, investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid.=20 "Instead, foreign judges will decide the fate of Americans," he says.=20 During a Senate hearing, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC, asked Professor Cherif Bassiouni, a leading academic proponent of the tribunal, if judges for this new entity could come from China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba or the Palestine Liberation Organization, and whether they could judge the actions of the U.S. government or U.S. citizens.=20 "There is no guarantee" this will not happen, he replied.=20 Despite the alarming response, the U.S. Senate voted 55 to 45 to encourage the establishment of the ICC within the U.N. system. The Clinton administration is strongly backing the plan.=20 "Before the century ends," Clinton told the U.N. last September, "we should establish a permanent international court to prosecute the most serious violations of humanitarian law."=20 Opponents, including Kincaid and Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, say such a plan means inventing, codifying and adjudicating a whole new system of international "humanitarian law" by unelected global officials with no constitutional authority over American citizens.=20 Under the U.N.-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a forerunner to and model for the ICC, there is no right for the accused "to be confronted with the witnesses" against him, as stipulated in the Sixth Amendment. Instead, the tribunal has adopted a provision known as Rule 75 which can "allow some witnesses to remain anonymous, even to defendants and their lawyers."=20 In addition, Kincaid points out, the Sixth Amendment refers to the right of the accused "to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation." However, the Yugoslavia tribunal has issued secret indictments. In a case involving Slavko Dokmanovic, he was invited by a U.N. official under false pretenses to a meeting, where he was seized and handcuffed by about 20 masked gunmen. He was then taken to the Hague, where the tribunal is based, and jailed.=20 President Clinton specifically defended that action, noting that Dokmanovic was "under sealed indictment."=20 "Americans are being led to believe that an International Criminal Court will be a great leap forward, following in the footsteps of the Nuremberg military tribunals that prosecuted Nazi and Japanese war criminals after World War II," says Kincaid. "But those tribunals were staged by victorious military powers and were temporary in nature. The ICC, a permanent court sponsored by the U.N., could intervene against a leading military power in the world today -- the United States -- rather than those countries which are true threats to international peace and security and which have the worst human rights records."=20 While the treaty is being sold by Clinton and Republicans and Democrats in Congress as a vehicle for seeking justice against notorious international criminals, such as the late Pol Pot or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Americans are also potential targets.=20 "It is not credible to argue that the United States is supporting the creation of this court while guaranteeing that no American will ever come before it," said David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for war-crimes issues and the main American representative at the U.N. negotiating table. "We are not saying Americans are off bounds."=20 Kincaid says he believes the ICC is designed to inhibit the U.S. from conducting military operations except under authority of the United Nations.=20 "The world needs lawyers more than the world knows," explained U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a pitch for the ICC before the International Bar Association. Indeed, the move is getting the support of lawyers in the United States and abroad. The American Bar Association has published a booklet endorsing the concept of the ICC.=20 One of the reasons lawyers love the ICC concept, opponents say, is because it would allow them to make up the rules as they go along. Since no international criminal code exists, each case represents an opportunity to create new precedents that will in turn create law.=20 Judge Gabrielle McDonald of the Hague Tribunal, speaking at the Aug. 11 session of the ICC's preparatory committee, explained that the goal "should be one of principle and not of detail. ... (The code should) be a flexible statute based on principles which may be developed by the court as circumstances require while still providing sufficient guidance to establish an international framework within which the court can work."=20 Is there a precedent for the United States to subordinate the authority of the U.S. Constitution to the vagaries of a world governing body? The World Trade Organization is one example. Recently, the United States has lost several key cases before the international agency governing commerce and tariffs. Will this be a model for the future?=20 "Today's international policy makers' ... short-term goal is to subordinate American and other national sovereignties to multilateral authorities," warned former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Washington last December. "Their long-term goal, one suspects, is to establish the U.N. as a kind of embryo world government."=20 Cliff Kincaid's new special 16-page report on the United Nations plan for an International Criminal Court is available for $10.99 by writing to: America's Survival, P.O. Box 146, Owings, MD 20736. The report and a video are available for $25.=20 =A91998, Western Journalism Center ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: IP: Caught and Too Fat to Flee (fwd) Date: 29 Apr 1998 16:02:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Another Chapter from The Secret Freedom Fighter by Jefferson Mack Paladin Press, 1986 I got my copy from Amazon for less than $20 (can't remember how much it was). Paladin told me it was out of print, which Amazon will tell you as well, but they managed to find me a copy. Get yours while you can! Mack makes EXCELLENT good common sense. Keep in mind that Mack wrote this amazing book back in the 80s--and things have gotten a lot worse since then. Patricia Neill Caught and Too Fat to Flee What happens when they steal your freedom and you're too fat to run for the hills? It can happen here. It happened in Czechoslovakia, Chile, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Laos, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Cuba, and dozens of other countries around the world. Free people woke up one morning and discovered they weren't free anymore. They lost it through invasion, or the manipulation of crooked politicians, or a coup by some army officers, or more often than we like to admit, through an election. There weren't any atomic bombs, and most of the time, there weren't any devastated cities, executions in the streets, or massive occupation armies. For a good part of the population, it was sort of hard to tell they weren't free, for a while. It takes time for a government to recruit secret police, get them spread throughout a society, and start the insidious process that turns men against neighbors and takes away the one thing humans must have to be happy-freedom. In just about every country that's lost its freedom, there were a few people who have tried to do something about it. They joined resistance movements, fled into other countries, committed personal acts of sabotage, or tried to use whatever legal means were left in place to get some of their freedom back. Unfortunately, almost always, there weren't very many people ready to take any risks to try to get freedom back. Most people in unfree countries decide it's easier to go along. Too often, too many don't see the loss of freedom as that big of a deal. That's the way the people who steal freedom want it. They want the average citizen still at the job, worried about what he is going to put in his mouth more than what he can say with it. The first day they take your freedom away, they are only too happy to let you get up in the morning, eat breakfast with the kids, take off for the office or the factory, and put in a full day's work. It's only when you have gotten used to their being around that they start cracking down, taking a little piece at a time, a day at a time. Every inch of the way they will keep telling you it's all for your own good and safety. That's bullshit. The only reason political leaders take freedom away is for their own good and safety. That's the way they make sure they keep their jobs. TOO MANY PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF THEY ARE FREE OR NOT. In every country that ever lost its freedoms, the men in power rule with the acquiescence of the general population. Ninety percent of the people in all those unfree countries not only tolerate the loss of their freedom, they actively cooperate with the authorities that have taken their freedom away. All too many of them, especially in those countries that lost freedom to clever politicians rather than invasion, think they are getting a good deal. They have bought the propaganda line sold by those who stole freedom. They believe that they really are better off losing a bit of freedom so they can be saved from hunger, political terrorists, Jews, blacks, Christians, commies, Nazis, crime in the streets, or whatever other fear stalks the streets of their own nightmares. If you are living in one of those countries where freedom has been lost and you want to fight to get it back, you have to expect you are going to be in the minority. Most of your friends and neighbors aren't going to want to join you. In fact, most of them will gladly turn you in just so they can earn a little credit with the local boss. If you succeed in winning freedom back, they won't give a damn, they won't thank you, and they will probably hate your guts for taking away the goodies the local tyrant was handing out as rewards for people who would rather be comfortable than free. DON'T SACRIFICE YOURSELF TO WIN FREEDOM FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. All you want is your own freedom. If you do any of the things suggested in this book, you should only do them if it results in making you feel a bit more free. You don't think it can happen here without at least a nuclear war? Don't kid yourself. Washington, D.C., is crammed with politicians who would love to trade large chunks of your freedom for promises to make life a bit easier, safer, or more secure. What's worse, there are a lot of your fellow Americans out there that want that kind of trade, as long as they get to be the ones that benefit. Just make sure it's only the blacks, or the Jews, or the bankers, or the farmers, or the labor unions, or the people that like to wear cowboy boots and carry Winchesters in their pickups that get stomped on, and they'll sign up right away for the great crusade. A couple of years ago some smartass showed several hundred city dwellers a copy of the Bill of Rights and asked them to sign a petition to make it a law. Sixty percent of the people who read it not only didn't recognize what it was, but they said they wouldn't vote for it. One group or another is trying to take away every one of the rights guaranteed in Thomas Jefferson's inspired first ten amendments. They want to terminate your rights to own and use weapons for your own protection. They want to tell you what you can and can't read. They want to control how you spend the money you make. They want to tell you when, where, and how you can drink a can of Coors, and where you can go after you drink it. They want to tell you how to pray and when to pray. Every piece of freedom they want to take away, they'll do it while telling you it's for your own good, or for the good of "everybody." If it's not enough that we have to put up with the vipers in our own country, there are all those other bastards out there, the Soviets, the Ayatollahs, the Red Guards, and the neo-Nazis that won't even bother with trying it through political means. They're waiting for one slip in our defenses and they'll be only too happy to move in and take our freedoms away by force. IT CAN HAPPEN HERE. Maybe it will come after a nuclear war that we lose but you survive. It's just as likely we'll do it to ourselves, voting the bastards in because too many people believe in their politicians instead of themselves. You wake up one morning and find that the mayor has been carted off to a camp for reeducation, and some bearded kid wearing a cap with a red star is sitting in his chair signing orders to confiscate your tractor, your barn, your farm land, and your kid's pet calf. Or maybe the sheriff has come around with a piece of paper in his hand and an apology while he collects your target pistol, two hunting rifles, and your kid's 410. Your favorite bar is selling nothing but Kool-Aid, the federal government has closed the bank and confiscated your checking account, and the only thing you can get on the TV is the mug of the new president appointed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is telling you what great things he is going to do for you. What are you going to do then? You say you are going to take to the hills, that you have a food and weapons stash waiting for just this kind of thing to happen? You're going to do what the Afghan, the Nicaraguan, and the Angolan freedom fighters are doing: you're going to take up open rebellion and try to win freedom back through force of arms. More power to you and lots of luck. You'll need it. Frankly, freedom fighters in the hills haven't been very successful in this century. They get good press and they die glorious deaths, but the countries they are fighting to make free get less free every day. Even so, I applaud you. If given the chance, I'll do what I can to help you. But I'm too honest with myself to try and fool you by promising I'll be up there in the hills with you. I look down at my gut and l'm honest enough to admit I'd just be in the way. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RUN FOR THE HILLS TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. So what do you do if you love freedom and want it back, but you're like me? You're on the wrong side of forty, you can't run a twelve-minute mile, let alone a five. You've had too many years of the good life which shows in the overhang covering your belt. Or maybe you are in good shape. You hunt and fish every chance you get, you raise a garden in the backyard, you do your own home repairs, and you work on a construction job. The problem is you've got a couple of young kids and a wife that's a homemaker, not a career lady who will keep bringing in a paycheck to feed the family while you play hero. Your job hasn't been abolished, even though your pay's been cut and your hours increased, and you already have heard some not-too-gentle suggestions about what might happen to that pretty wife and the two little boys if you don't show up at the factory on Monday morning. Well, you say, you'll join the underground support mechanism. Work in town as a courier, carry out sabotage missions, help print and distribute secret newspapers, spy on the movements of the government oppressors, and report to the rebels in the mountains. Again, more power and good luck to you, if you can make the connection. That will be the problem, finding the people in the underground. If you already have some ideas about who that might be if things go haywire, the people who take over will know about them, too. The first thing they will do is round up the most popular school teacher, or the commander of the local VFW, or whoever else is a community leader that believes in freedom. Those people will all be in a reeducation center, if they're still alive. You start asking questions about where you can join up and you'll end up in the same camp with them. Believe me, if it happens here, there will be spies everywhere, trying to ferret out your kind of people, people who don't buy the promises, who still want to control their own lives, who still believe the only choice is to live free or die. No, I am not arguing that you have to go along, to keep reporting to work, to cooperate and keep your mouth shut, hoping that some time in the future somebody will give you, or maybe your grandchildren, back their freedom. Unfortunately, that is what most people are doing in all those countries that have little or no freedom. But there is an alternative, and that's what this book is about. The alternative has its risks-fighting for freedom always does-but the things that are described in this book are the kinds of things you can do while cutting down the personal risks you have to take for both yourself and your family. You don't have to get organized; in fact, that is what you want to avoid. You work in secret, letting no one know what you are doing. DON'T TRY TO GET YOUR FREEDOM BACK BY ORGANIZING. Grab every bit of freedom you can on your own and run with it. I know that sounds strange and goes against everything you have ever been told about the importance of organizing, the need to play on a winning team, and how there is strength in numbers. The people who preach organization don't want you to be free, they want to control you so they can be free to do what they want. A truly free society is disorganized. In that kind of society, everyone is doing exactly what they want to do and taking orders froi-n nobody. That doesn't mean you can stomp the other guy for the fun it gives you. He's entitled to freedom too. Because everybody respects everybody else's right, a free society is peaceful, but it is disorganized. Nobody is in charge. Nobody takes orders. You might think such a disorganized society would be easy to conquer, but it is not. Any society in which people refuse to cooperate unless they agree it's to their own advantage to do so can't be governed except by the will of the people, or by the massive application of force. It's the ordered societies where people are used to doing what they are told to do that are easy to conquer. That's why a handful of Spanish soldiers conquered Mexico in the sixteenth century. They lopped off the head of the Aztec Empire and had every Indian in the country instantly obeying the orders of the new rulers. The poor slobs had been so organized by the Aztec emperors that they didn't know how to do anything else but follow orders. If a lot of people all over a country that's lost its freedom did the kinds of things described in this book, then the devil help the people in power, because they are going to need it. If only ten percent of the men and women living in the unfree countries of the world followed the advice in this book, things in those countries would fall apart so fast that the rulers would have to grant a few more freedoms. Unfortunately, this book probably won't be read in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Chile, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Laos, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, or Cuba. (Although let's hope somebody does smuggle a few copies into some of those countries.) This is the kind of book that the freedom stealers fear the most. There will be more than a few politicians in this country that will condemn this book. It is pretty obvious that some of the things I propose could make it difficult to impose their grandiose schemes of social control. Screw them. The more people who buy this book, the more those fancy bastards will be put on notice that they had better not try it here. We still have a few of our freedoms, and the time to prepare to fight to get them back is before we lose them. So read this carefully, memorize the suggestions and programs, but don't get caught with a copy or with any notes you've made if it does happen here. Just be ready to start your career as a secret freedom fighter. That's what this book is about. How to not cooperate, how to secretly carry out a campaign that, when combined with similar campaigns by hundreds and thousands of other people, each acting as a lone individual, will give whoever has taken over so much trouble that they will soon regret the day they stole freedom. If you are the only person in the country who does these things, you get the personal satisfaction of knowing that there was one free man left. If a lot of other people start doing the same things, then you will get your freedom back. A SECRET FREEDOM FIGHTER FIGHTS ALONE. Nobody ever gives an ant an order. Yet, by picking up a single grain of saiid and carrying it away, the ant helps dig the nest in the desert. The secret freedom fighter is like the ant. Working without instruction or orders from anyone, he follows his natural instincts, fighting the oppressor whenever and wherever he can. Yet in a freedom-loving society, he will not be working alone. Others, hopefully hundreds and thousands of others, will also be operating, acting without direction or order. The total sum of thousands of individual acts will give the appearance of a massive organization. That's what the oppressor will think he is facing-an organized rebellion. He will look for leaders that aren't there, secret headquarters that don't exist, and couriers who carry no messages. The organization will never be found. All there will be is a single individual, multiplied thousands of times. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: House Bill copy and paste message. (fwd) Date: 29 Apr 1998 14:21:22 PST On Apr 29, RHill@MICKEY.GC.WHECN.EDU wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Got this off the GOA page. Thought some of y'all might want to send it to your representative in the House. Roy Hill Dear Representative: I urge you to cosponsor Rep. Ron Paul's Brady repeal bill (H.R. 2721). This November, when the Brady Law converts over to the Instant Registration Check, federal bureaucrats will begin conducting background checks on ALL gun purchases - shotguns and rifles included. As stated by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America: Every Federal Gun Law on the Books: When the permanent Brady rules come on line, ALL gun sales - long guns and handguns - will fall under federal control of "national instant background checks." The centralized federalization of all gun-sale records will be complete. I agree with Mr. Korwin. The Instant Registration Check is not only unconstitutional, it gives the federal government the potential to register ALL gun buyers. No matter how many prohibitions are written into the law, the possibility of gun owner registration is always present as long as the Instant Check remains law. Law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove their innocence to government officials before exercising their rights. So I urge you to cosponsor H.R. 2721 - a bill that will repeal Brady and put an end to this dangerous law. Please let me know what you intend to do. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Teen Forum: Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings Date: 30 Apr 1998 07:28:07 -0400 From the mouths of babes! This is encouraging. Tom >Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:45:40 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum <eplurib@infinet.com> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <eplurib@infinet.com> >Subject: Teen Forum: Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings > >Teen Forum: Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings >Wednesday, April 29, 1998 >By Bill Steigerwald, Post-Gazette Staff Writer > >Guns don't kill children on the school playgrounds of Jonesboro or at >eighth grade dances in Edinboro, young people do. > >Or, in the case of the horror in Jonesboro, the killing is done by >gun-happy boys with no consciences and clueless parents who don't stress >responsibility. > >The above could be a bumper-sticker argument straight from National >Rifle Association headquarters. > >But it is also an accurate summation of what Keith Bocian, Melyssa >Jenkins, Tom Marvit, Aaron Reed, Jennifer Schaupp and James Ziegler >think when it comes to placing blame for America's continuing scourge of >gun-related violence. > >In their discussion of guns and how to control the damage they do at >last week's Teen Forum, the six high school students made it clear that, >as far as they are concerned, the Second Amendment still rules. For >despite what happened in Jonesboro, Ark., and the death toll elsewhere >from America's love affair with firearms, not one of them says they >would want the Constitution changed to outlaw guns. > >Let's get one thing straight. The six are not, through some quirk of >random selection, sons and daughters of wild game hunters or militia >members. Far from it. Mostly city kids, they've hardly had any >experience with shooting anything more lethal than a Super Soaker. > >Guns do not play an important part in their lives. Most of them don't >like guns and wouldn't use one to kill any living thing. The boys - >Keith, Tom, Aaron, James - say they could get their hands on a gun any >time they wanted from someone they know. But they don't see guns openly >displayed in their neighborhoods or schools. > >Only Tom, a sophomore at Taylor Allderdice, has seen a gun in school. > >Well, actually, he didn't see it himself but one of his friends saw it >when it fell out of a student's backpack. The student pointed it at a >substitute teacher, then threw it out the classroom window. He was a >student who was often in trouble, but he got off without punishment, Tom >says, because of "a technicality."" > >Aaron, a Brashear High School freshman from the Hill District, is the >only one who says he's ever come close to shooting a gun in hot anger. > >It happened after he got jumped by four unarmed kids in his >neighborhood. He went and got his 14-year-old friend's "heat," a >.38-caliber pistol. He was going to "do" them with the pistol, Aaron >says. He was going to make them show him respect. "I just wanted to >shoot them. It was my mentality at the time." But Aaron cooled off and >took the gun back to his friend. "I guess it's not in me to kill >someone," he says. > >Now, none of the six would ever think of using a gun to even a score. >"It doesn't even up the scales, it tips the balance," says Keith, a >Perry Hilltop 18-year-old. Anyway, Tom says, there are lots of other >ways to retaliate against your persecutors - from telling on them to >getting a friend in the library to put fines on their library books. > >Keith is the only one who lives in a house that has guns. His father's >pistol and his brother's hunting rifle hold no special appeal to him, >yet he sounds like a natural-born spokesman for the NRA and others who >uphold gun-owners' rights. > >"The problem's not with guns," he says confidently during a discussion >of the Jonesboro massacre. "The problem was with the kids' ethics." > >Tom is less reluctant to blame guns for violence rather than our >culture. He thinks it's the way Americans have been taught. He knows >that in Israel, as in Switzerland, everyone has pistols, rifles or even >machine guns in their house for purposes of national defense. But in >Israel, he says, you never hear about anyone using their guns for crime. > >Tom thinks everyone should take responsibility for his own actions, >including the Jonesboro boys, whom he says knew exactly what they were >doing and "should be prosecuted as adults." But Aaron thinks adults are >to blame. > >If those boys in Arkansas hadn't been introduced to guns so early by >their parents, he argues, the slaughter would never have happened. > >Meanwhile, Aaron's Hill District neighbor James, a junior at >Pittsburgh's High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, is the >only one of the six who expresses a view that gun-control advocates >could find encouraging. > >"I don't see why people have to have guns," he says. "Hunting and >everything, that's pretty fun. But I don't see why there couldn't be >some kind of renting process where you have the gun all day to go out >into the woods or whatever. I just don't see why you absolutely need to >have a gun in your house. For self-protection, that's OK, but..." > >"It's in the Constitution," argues Melyssa, who shows why she may become >a lawyer some day.. > >"Even if you do take away the guns," Keith says, "how do you enforce the >law? How do say, 'Well, cops can have guns, but nobody else can'?"" > >"Yeah," Melyssa says, "because the cops could take their guns home." > >But James thinks gun ownership should be more limited. For example, he >says, "You shouldn't have guns or ammunition in the house if you have >children." > >Melyssa doesn't buy it. > >"It's hard to single people with children out, or people with anything >out, whenever the Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. > >"It doesn't say you have the right to bear arms if you don't have >children or if you don't have a bad temper. And that's the Constitution. > >If we can't violate freedom of speech or freedom of the press, we >shouldn't violate that one either. > >"It's all about being responsible." >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes <foolery@bright.net> Subject: Fw: The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror Date: 30 Apr 1998 07:32:19 -0400 >Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:53:19 -0800 >From: Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org> >Subject: Fw: The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror=20 >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > > > >------------------------ > From: David Hoffman/Haight Ashbury Free Press <hafreepr@telepath.com> > Subject: piml] The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror=20 > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:26:57 -0500 (CDT)=20 > > >My book is finally out! Borders is already stocked with it. Barnes and >Noble seems to be taking their sweet time, but they are discounting the >standard retail price of $18.95. It's 540 pages long, well footnoted, and >has about 40 photos. Please spread the word. Thank you. > > *** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE *** > >In The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, investigative >reporter David Hoffman rips the veil off the cover-up of the worst >terrorist attack in the history of the country. > >The terrible tragedy that shocked the nation is over. Timothy McVeigh and >Terry Nichols have been tried and convicted. Yet Nichols' jury forewoman >Niki Deutchman stated her opinion that the FBI knows of additional >suspects-a fact the government is clearly hiding. Why? Who are these >suspects, and why hasn't the government brought them to justice? > >Reporter David Hoffman, editor of the Haight Ashbury Free Press (based in >San Francisco) is the only reporter who spent two years in Oklahoma City >uncovering the facts of this terrible tragedy. Hoffman examines the very >evidence an Oklahoma County Grand Jury has been charged with >investigating-evidence the Federal Government doesn't want heard. What he >reveals will make audiences' blood boil! > >* The informants and undercover agents who told their handlers of the >impending bombing weeks, even months, before it occurred. > >* The neo-Nazi and Mid-East terrorist cells connected to Timothy McVeigh >and Terry Nichols, and why the FBI hasn't brought them to justice. > >* Why the Oklahoma City Federal Building could not possibly have been >destroyed solely by a fertilizer bomb, no matter how large. > >* An amazing pattern of government duplicity, stone-walling, and cover-up, >even murder! > >"Articulate, factual, sometimes frightening=8A Hoffman hits like a hammer= at >the heart of the Oklahoma City Octopus." - Anthony J. Hilder, host of Radio >Free World > >"How the American people are betrayed by their own covert and law >enforcement agencies, either through gross ineptitude and/or corruption, >would be lost to history were it not for Hoffman's extraordinary research. >A truly incredible read." - Michael Levine, best-selling author of Deep >Cover, The Big White Lie and Triangle of Death. > > ### > >David Hoffman, Publisher >Haight Ashbury Free Press >6118 N. Meridian, #621 >Oklahoma City, OK 73112 >(405) 948-1330 (temporarily in Oklahoma City) > >Pick up my new book, "The Oklahoma City Bombing and the >Politics of Terror," due out in April by Feral House. >To see the book cover and read a sample chapter, go to >our home page: http://www.webcom.com/haight > > > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 04/29/98 Time: 22:53:20 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: Repealing the Income Tax!!!!! --- (fwd) Date: 30 Apr 1998 09:05:52 -0500 (CDT) ----------Forwarded Message---------- Encoding: 127 TEXT Interested in the legislation Ron Paul is sponsoring and cosponsoring? See the complete list at http://www.house.gov/paul/ !! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++ FREEDOM WATCH UPDATE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++ From the Office of +++++++ US REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ISSUED: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 In this edition: 1. Paul introduces Liberty Amendment to Constitution, would abolish the income tax! 2. Version of Paul privacy legislation will get House vote this week +++++ 1. +++++ _Paul introduces Liberty Amendment to Constitution _Measure repeals income tax, promotes individual liberty, limited government Calling it necessary for the promotion of individual liberty and limited government, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has introduced what should be 28th Amendment to the US Constitution; HJ116, the Liberty Amendment. "Over the years this amendment has enjoyed widespread support and has been introduced several times in the past by various Members of Congress, but finally this measure has a chance of success given the conservative Congress and mood of the country in favor of a more limited, constitutional government which respects individual liberty," said Paul after introducing the measure Tuesday night. The amendment will not only prohibit the federal government from participating in activities not specifically authorized in the Constitution, essentially strengthening the existing Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but will repeal the 16th Amendment. The 16th allowed for the collection of income taxes. "The income tax is the most regressive tax imaginable, allowing government to take first claim on our lives. The income tax assumes government owns us, as individuals, and has a sovereign claim to the fruits of our labor. This is immoral. But government has been compelled to levy this economically damaging tax because government has grown so big. By reducing the size of the federal government to those functions strictly enumerated in the Constitution, there will no longer be a need for the income tax," said Paul. Paul concluded, "Once again, Americans are being treated to hearings on the abuses of the IRS. For as abusive as the IRS is, it is in fact simply the predictable result of the underlying income tax. By eliminating the income tax, we will go a long way toward eliminating these abuses." The Liberty Amendment has evolved over a period of years, beginning in 1952 with introduction of Section 1 by Rep. Ralph Gwinn of New York. The amendment, or a form of it, has been supported by more than a dozen Member of Congress, including Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif) in 1993 (to end federal estate and gift taxes) and Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) in 1996 (to repeal the 16th Amendment). Rep. Paul lent support to the Liberty Amendment in 1981, when he introduced the measure with several other Members, during the 97th Congress. +++++ 2. +++++ _Version of Paul privacy legislation will get House vote this week Legislation which would protect the privacy of American citizens and prevent a national identification number from being assigned by the federal government will be considered by the United States House of Representatives this week. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) will be offered as an amendment to HR6, the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. As the legislation now stands, HR6 if passed would require the Secretary of Education to assign a unique identifying number to each participant in the higher education programs. Rep. Paul's amendment would prevent the Secretary of Education from using the Social Security Number for the purpose, as well as prohibit the use of any other existing identifying numbers to be used for this purpose. This amendment is a version of a more general piece of legislation Rep. Paul has introduced, HR3261, the Privacy Protection Act. This legislation would not only restrict the use of Social Security Number to the original purpose of administering the Social Security System, but would also prohibit any two agencies of the federal government from using the same ID number for a US resident. "The expanding use of the Social Security Number is a dangerous precedent with serious consequences for Americans everywhere," said Paul. "The number was originally used to administer Social Security benefits, but abuses of the number have grown and grown, effectively creating a national ID number that exposes innocent Americans to needless risk every day." Using a SSN and one other piece of personal information, criminals can gain access to credit cards, bank accounts and other information. While eventually many of these scams are caught and the victim cleared, a great deal of damage is often done in the process. "But the more important issue is one of constitutionality: the federal government simply does not have the authority to create this type of big-brother program. The question we need to be asking is this: Why does government feel like it needs to assign tracking numbers to Americans? Why does the federal government want to be able to track Americans from the cradle to the grave? This process is more indicative of fascist states, rather than societies which value individual liberty and privacy." A vote could come as early as Wednesday, April 29. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CORRESPONDENCE FOR REP. PAUL SHOULD BE SENT USING THE MAIL FORM ON THE CONGRESSIONAL WEB SITE, http://www.house.gov/paul/mail/ . TO CHANGE YOUR E-ADDRESS, OR BE REMOVED FROM THIS LIST, GO TO: http://www.house.gov/paul/fwu/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: IP: IRS tactics likened to 'police state' (fwd) Date: 30 Apr 1998 10:39:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----------------------- NOTE: 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.=20 ----------------------- Source: Washington Times IRS tactics likened to 'police state' By John Godfrey THE WASHINGTON TIMES John Colaprete sat in church the morning armed special agents from the Internal Revenue Service raided his home and the restaurants he owns. With federal search warrants in hand and accompanied by state and local law officers, the agents held an employee at gunpoint, seized a truckload of records and ransacked his home, Mr. Colaprete, co-owner of the Jewish Mother restaurants in Virginia, told a Senate Finance Committee hearing yesterday. "I used to believe that such things could only happen in a Communist-bloc country, or a police state," Mr. Colaprete recalled. "I don't believe that anymore." Mr. Colaprete was one of three business owners testifying about what they said were IRS abuses at a hearing that also explored charges of rampant racial and sexual discrimination at the agency. The series of critical hearings on IRS abuses continues through Friday. "Should even one of these allegations be true, that's one too many, and I won't tolerate it," IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti said at a press conference held on the steps of the IRS' national office. Mr. Rossotti said he would not discuss the specific cases because of federal disclosure and privacy laws, because some of the cases are still in various forms of litigation, and because little would be served by rehashing the issues. Senate Finance Committee Chairman William V. Roth Jr., Delaware Republican, said his investigation found no evidence to soften the picture painted by the witnesses, who included William A. Moncrief, an oilman from Texas, and Richard Gardner, owner of one of the largest tax preparation firms in Oklahoma, as well as NAACP board member Leroy Warner Jr. "It is outrageous that any law-abiding American should have to go through this," Mr. Roth said. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, noted that the Department of Justice had participated in all the cases, and said it should also be investigated. Mr. Roth and Mr. Rossotti met Friday and agreed "the real objective here is to make fundamental change at the IRS," Mr. Rossotti said. The IRS' criminal investigation division, which conducted the raids on Mr. Colaprete's restaurants, "plays a vital role in ensuring the fairness of our tax system by fighting criminal tax evasion," Mr. Rossotti said. "It is critical that ... its operations be beyond reproach." Charges were never filed against Mr. Colaprete. The bookkeeper whose testimony sparked the March 1994 searches went to jail for embezzling from another employer, according to the Senate Finance Committee. For Mr. Moncrief, it was a disgruntled former employee who led IRS agents in September 1994 to raid the Moncrief family offices in Fort Worth in hopes of proving nearly a decade of tax fraud. Mr. Moncrief's computer system and files were confiscated and stored in a warehouse; his employees for a time had to get IRS permission to use either. In January 1996, the Department of Justice dropped criminal charges and Mr. Moncrief paid a $23 million settlement for the remaining civil case. "I did it for the welfare of my family," Mr. Moncrief told the committee. Mr. Gardner lost business computers, printers and other equipment during a March 1995 raid by IRS agents. After two years, the Department of Justice brought an indictment, but charges were dropped earlier this year. In all the cases, agents carried handguns. In some, they wore jackets with "IRS" printed on the back. Committee members were quick to express their outrage. "The criminal investigation division is out of control. The IRS is out of control," said Sen. Don Nickles, Oklahoma Republican. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said, "I have heard over the years the conduct and actions of the IRS sometimes described as Gestapo-type actions, but I never had heard examples as explicit as this." Sen. Bob Kerrey, Nebraska Democrat, said, "You all have had your Fourth Amendment rights violated." Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat and a former state tax collector, said, "I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which ... this would be justified. It is unfathomable." Only after the witnesses had left did some senators wonder aloud whether they ought to hear from the IRS before drawing conclusions. Lawmakers seemed particularly incensed that the IRS raided Mr. Colaprete's restaurants just 48 hours after hearing the "flimsy claims" of a bookkeeper who later proved to be a criminal. But according to an exhibit filed by federal lawyers in Mr. Colaprete's lawsuit against the IRS agents, Virginia's Alcohol Beverage Commission began the investigation and "the search warrant affidavit makes it clear that the ABC had worked on the case for months and had gathered rather persuasive evidence of underreported income." "I think we all want to resolve problems that we've uncovered ... but that ought to be based on facts," said Mr. Conrad, "and the best way to get at facts is to get both sides of the story." Mr. Kerrey said SWAT-team tactics should be reserved for hard criminals, but "no drug kingpin or money launderer has a big flashing neon light on their forehead saying, 'I'm a drug kingpin and a money launderer.' They wear dark suits and red ties and they look normal. They live in many of our neighborhoods." Copyright =A9 1998 News World Communications, Inc. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <pwatson@utdallas.edu> Subject: IP: Globalization Has Not Severed Corporations' National Links (fwd) Date: 30 Apr 1998 09:45:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----------------------- NOTE: 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. ----------------------- Source: New York Times April 30, 1998 Globalization Has Not Severed Corporations' National Links By LOUIS UCHITELLE For nearly three years, Caterpillar Inc. has been banging its head against the Clinton administration door, trying to get government-sponsored loans for the sale of its big earthmovers to China. Beijing is buying them by the dozens to build the giant Three Gorges Dam, which the administration considers damaging to the environment. So the Chinese have turned to suppliers in Japan and Europe, where governments are less concerned about the environment and more forthcoming with credit. "We've only managed to sell the Chinese a few off-highway trucks," a Caterpillar official said. That is hardly the description of a giant multinational ranging unfettered across the world. For all the talk of economic globalization, the process is still in an early stage. A few multinationals, such as IBM, Royal Dutch/Shell or Imperial Chemical Industries, are ahead of the pack in spreading their revenues, research, financing, stockholders and management over many countries. But the majority are more like Caterpillar in America, Mitsubishi Corp. in Japan or Volkswagen in Germany. For all their interest in overseas sales and investment, nationality still binds them to home. "What we have is United States, European and Japanese corporations trying to dress in global clothing," said William W. Keller, executive director of the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "But if you conceive of globalization as being the rootlessness of corporations, that is a paradox. You don't have corporations without states attached to them. When they need help, you find out who they really belong to." Many corporations have invoked the competitive pressures of an increasingly borderless global economy as the reason for moving operations and jobs abroad and to press for other concessions. But a proliferation of treaty negotiations in recent months, aimed at setting rules for the global economy -- most of them favorable so far to business -- has raised a fresh question: just how untethered are these companies and who, therefore, should have a voice in the rule-making? "We have to keep separate that the mobility of corporations has increased from the notion that we are living in a completely seamless integrated world market that gives national government no bargaining power to set standards," said Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard. "The latter has not happened." Some want to stop the process of globalization. But others, including a re-energized American labor movement, are more interested in setting international rules of the road. Indeed, 12 different rule-making negotiations are currently under way. Most are inspired by the North American Free Trade Agreement and the treaty that set up the World Trade Organization, in which the United States and 116 other nations agreed essentially to recognize WTO rulings as having the power of national law. Several of the agreements now being discussed would require Senate ratification and would be similarly binding. That would push the setting of global rules beyond the voluntary guidelines that have characterized most such agreements since World War II. "Thus far, the corporations, more than any other group, are shaping the new global regulations," said Raymond Vernon, a Harvard Business School economist. "It is not that they are abandoning their countries for a global identity. They are simply pushing abroad and arguing that if the obstacles are cleared away, they will produce enough for everyone and raise all boats." The recent surge in rule-making brings out strange bedfellows. Corporate America and the AFL-CIO find themselves on one side, favoring an international stage, while the most visible advocates of those who want the rules made in America include Pat Buchanan, the conservative commentator and politician, and Ralph Nader, the liberal consumer advocate. "Rather than international negotiations, the rules should be written through Congress, where you can have discussion and debate," Nader said. As an example, he argued, Congress can no longer effectively ban imports of products made with child labor. American corporate executives see in the new wave of rule-making not only the elimination of remaining trade barriers but also the removal of restrictions on investment abroad and greater freedom to purchase foreign companies. For Nader and Buchanan, however, these are hidden tools to make the shifting of jobs abroad that much easier. Buchanan advocates protective tariffs to keep companies at home, while Nader would discourage job-shifting by canceling tax breaks, imposing a "social tariff" and prohibiting Export-Import Bank loans for exports that contain too many foreign parts. The bank once financed only those exports manufactured entirely in the United States. But it has relaxed that rule in recent years and now, for example, provides credits to customers of Boeing Co. to purchase aircraft that have as much as 15 percent "foreign content," and sometimes more. Bucking such trends is futile, says AFL-CIO president John Sweeney. He calls the Nader-Buchanan approach simplistic. "It is a very good feeling to tell the workers we are going to bring all the jobs back," he said, "but it is not realistic." With that in mind, the American labor movement has joined Corporate America in embracing global rule-making. Instead of waging a losing battle to keep jobs at home, the AFL-CIO is demanding a seat at the rule-making table, with only limited success. The intention is to preserve labor standards at home by raising them abroad. That would be done by writing into every agreement a ban against child and prison labor, as well as guarantees that foreign workers can assemble freely and engage in collective bargaining. "If you can get rid of repression, workers can negotiate their own conditions," Sweeney said. The administration included the AFL-CIO prescription in a bill now before Congress asking for $18 billion in new U.S. financing for the International Monetary Fund. The language has survived so far in the House and Senate. The treaty talks draw little public attention. They range from negotiations to eliminate tariffs on products such as cellular phones and computers to high-level talks between European and American business executives to develop common product standards that would then be incorporated into binding treaties. The World Trade Organization, born in the tariff-cutting Uruguay Round agreement, plays a big role in this process, setting new standards, reducing more tariffs and eliminating other barriers to trade and investment. "This is about international commerce," said Diane Sullivan, director of international trade at the National Association of Manufacturers. "Labor and the environment are not excluded, but they are not at the center of the WTO's concerns." These outsiders are clamoring to make their views known in the negotiations for a treaty that is to be called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The agreement is being negotiated under the umbrella of the 29-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Government negotiators, most representing major industrial powers, have met periodically at the organization's headquarters in Paris. The last session took place in mid-April. The group's main goal is to produce a binding treaty that would give foreign corporations a legal status equal to that of domestic companies, establish rules for prompt and sufficient payment in cases of expropriation and give foreign companies equal bidding rights in privatizations of state enterprises. The United States already has a number of similar, bilateral agreements, but this would be the first multilateral treaty. And it is drawing fire from Nader and others, including labor, which is pressing for a greater say in the talks. As a result, the early May target date for completing an agreement has been postponed at least six months to allow for "consultation and assessment," the organization said this week. Acknowledging the pressure, Alan Larson, assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs, who represents the United States in the negotiations, said: "There is strong support for measures in the treaty that would advance this country's environmental goals and our agenda on international labor standards. This treaty will not interfere with the ability of the United States to regulate in a normal and nondiscriminatory fashion to protect the environment or worker safety or health." Faced with such regulation, Rodrik of Harvard argues, corporations will not decamp. "We exaggerate how effectively corporations can evade national rules," he said. Indeed, many top executives of U.S. multinationals see their companies as essentially American in identity. That was evident in interviews with a half-dozen of them, and in the replies of others to a letter from Nader, who has been campaigning for shareholders to recite the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, in the company's name, at each annual meeting. The pledge would be a gesture of corporate loyalty to the United States in return for the tax breaks and other advantages that companies receive. None of the 45 corporations that replied to Nader have agreed to such a proposal. Many argue that it would interfere with efforts to be good corporate citizens elsewhere in the world. Yet most spoke of their companies as essentially American in their management, their headquarters, ownership and workers. "It would be difficult to disassociate ourselves from America, even if we wanted to do so," Steve Burrow, president of Anheuser-Busch Cos.' international operation, said in an interview. "Our packaging is even red, white and blue, and the American eagle is part of our image. But our obligation is to our shareholders, and our international operation is an important part of increasing share value." All of these themes and conflicts run through Caterpillar's effort to get low-interest credit. The company has moved about 25 percent of its production abroad; the rest is concentrated in the Midwest, where management and research is also centered. But overseas sales are rising rapidly, and the corporate goal is to have 75 percent of sales from abroad by 2010, up from 50 percent today. The Export-Import Bank plays a significant role in this strategy, already providing low-interest credits for $300 million of Caterpillar's $19 billion in annual revenue. If sales for the Three Gorges project on the Yangtze River in China were to be similarly financed, the total would be $350 million or more. Capital, of course, now flows relatively easily around the world, making loans available practically everywhere. But when Caterpillar is competing to sell diesel engines to Zambia, gold mining equipment to Russia and earthmovers to China, the global lenders are not so quick to offer low-interest loans. So it and other multinationals continue to turn to their home governments. "In really tough, high-risk, high-opportunity markets, a government will always have greater leverage for repayment than a bank," said William C. Lane, a Caterpillar executive in Washington. "You really have to have someone in your corner." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: GSL> Instant Checks (fwd) Date: 30 Apr 1998 09:49:11 PST On Apr 30, chairman@GunsSaveLives.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] PERSONAL OPINION I would like to throw out for thought and discussion some ideas about "instant check" records. I will not address here the problem that the checks will not be instant but will enshrine a waiting period, that the system will quickly be turned into a basis for curtailing gun shows and private sales, or a host of other problems with it. This deals with the destruction of records. If you have heard it, bear with me. #1 NO instant check system run by the feds (and most states) can EVER have the records destroyed legally. Absorb this. The Federal Records Act and many court decisions following have repeatedly been upheld as requiring that records be kept. Federal records (including computer transactions) are federal property. They are governed by the Records Act. THEY MUST KEEP THEM. Now, a simple principle of law that everybody understands says that if a later law modifies an earlier one in some way, the later law applies. The federal courts have made an exception to this for the Records Act. The Records Act itself must be explicitly and intentionally addressed and amended in the new law for any new law's procedures to override those of the Records Act. This means the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady Act's requirement that background check records NOT be kept is VOID. The feds conducting the program could be PROSECUTED if they destroy the records. #2 The FBI is taking a very sneaky tack on the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady permision-to-exercise-your-rights checks. They are saying that the gun check program is one thing, and the records of that might have to disappear (this is questionable), but the access of FBI records is a separate thing. ANY TIME the FBI criminal databases or fingerprint databases are checked, the person who is being checked and the reason WILL BE KEPT. #3 The NRA's fight to have states pass instant check systems was based on their propaganda that the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady invasions of privacy would NOT be done by the feds if the state where the purchase was going on had its own check. Now it appears the feds are proposing they will conduct the national check, regardless. There will be multiple layers of checks. In Fairfax County, VA, where the National Rifle Association, Gun owners of America, and ironically, GunsSaveLives, are headquartered, a handgun buyer at the end of this year will get the same check, through the federal database, THREE time to buy a handgun. The locals check for handgun buys. The state checks all firearms purchases from dealers. The feds will now be checking ALSO, they are proposing, and the state law has not been and will not be modified this year to stop the repetitive checks of the same data. Buying a handgun in a store there will create THREE 99-year records in the FBI's files of the single purchase. If you go to the state police for a permit to buy more than one handgun in 30 days, the single act of buying two handguns will create FOUR computer checks and computer records, as the state police will run your background AGAIN for this permit. Just one example of how the vaunted NRA instant check will not have any records kept. #4 At each stage of all this, the local and state governments may or may not be under any compunction or compulsion to keep or detroy records. It doesn't matter. Which prosecutor (in most places) will prosecute cops for NOT destroying government property? Almost everywhere there is a background check, somebody keeps a record. It is the nature of government. #5 The ironic thing about this is many of the pro-gun people around the country who have fought and contributed and worked to prevent national computer registration of gun owners in earlier years have EMBRACED this insidious plan. It is the demarcation line. For years, federal computer records of who has guns has been the big enchilada of the gun movement. The boogie man. It's here. Thanks to the NRA for joing with HCI and the ATF, wittingly or unwittingly. --Rick Vizachero chairman, GunsSaveLives (personal opinions, and not those of any organization) walter lee wrote: > > ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com > Nancy, Jim and others: > > I sent this to Tanya last week. When I say in the letter to her, that > instant checks are not bad in theory, I mean that. If one could get > clearance in one minute with no records of the call kept and no fee, I > don't have are reason to be against it-- if it served a purpose. It the > feds would prosecute any violent felon or fugitive to the max for trying > to buy a gun, then everyone would be safer. However, the feds don't > prosecute, the want fees, there is still a potential six day wait, and > they are setting it up for registration. > > By the way, under the proposed federal rules, the instant checks don't > effect people with state CHLs that include background checks in the > application. My objection is on principle. They already have my name, > but they won't have a list of transactions. > > Walter LeeInstant check (walter lee , Sat 15:38) > To: > tm@nra.org > > Given the rules the rules posted concerning the "instant background > check" it is time for the NRA and ILA to reconsider its endorsement. > > The instant check is not instant. Allow three business days for > results, which translates up to six calendar days. Call on Wednesday > morning. Currently, the day of the call does not count. Maybe it will > under the new ruling. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday (three business days) > , Saturday, Sunday, National Holiday. They call you Tuesday and > comply. There is nothing instant about it. > > There are serious fees imposed; 13 to 16 dollars per transaction is the > estimate. On a two thousand dollar trap gun, its like nothing. On a > used, sixty dollar .22 rifle it comes to a 25% increase. > > They asked for SS#s. Its volunteer, but... > > I have been told that because Federal computers are involved, the data > will be retained "for audit purposes" "by law." I have also been told > that the record will be discarded when the applicant turns 99. > > Some of this comes directly from the BATF website--in terms of time and > money. > > I can agree that an instant background check is not bad in theory but > the devil is in the details and those details are what we have to live > by. Please, Please, Please oppose the rules submitted by the FBI and > ATF before its too late. > > Demand that instant be instant. Congress appropriated money to set up > the system. Don't try to make gun owners pay for it again. > > I have heard three dealers say they are going to quit when their FFLs > expire. We are running out of dealers in my neck of the woods. The > rules of the instant checks are one of the things that are driving them > out. > > Please register an objection to these details. > > Walter Lee > Life Member > > -------------------------- > GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List > > This list is governed by an acceptable use > policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html > or available upon request. > > To unsubscribe send a message to > majordomo@listbox.com > > with the following line in the body: > > unsubscribe gsl > > GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. > THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL > RIGHTS RESERVED. -- Don't agonize. Organize. http://GunsSaveLives.com (Opinions here are personal and not those of any organization.) [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: NBC Date: 30 Apr 1998 13:52:20 PST Dr. Suter, folks, I'd like to suggest a concurrent strategy here. It's been a long time since I last checked out the, "biz", news heirarchy, but I recall seeing some newsgroups there and elsewhere devoted to various aspects of advertizing. These represent an opportunity to go on the offensive. If anyone has a current list of these or other appropriate newsgroups, please post them. Here's the Strategy: Someone posts a question appropriate to the newsgroup about this TV Movie and/or other similar Propaganda efforts. The rest of us chime in with our, "Pro-Gun/Open-Concealed-Vermont Carry/Pro-Rights/Yeah, I'd join a Boycott/etc." messages, flooding those news groups with them. While this might interfere with gathering Intel about Prospective Sponsors, it would also get the messaage across to a whole lot of businesses that there's a whole lot of people, "out there", who don'tlike their Rights being messed with. The more this happens, the less likely such Propaganda efforts are to find Sponsors in the future, the less likely businesses are to post, "No Carry", signs on their premises etc., etc. This would also litmous test a lot of various businesses'/individuals attitudes for us. Inserting a few comments about, "Journalistic Biases", and other unfair tactics should also have a salutary effect. It could even cure some of their, "If it bleeds, it leads", Modus Operandi. Cutting off their cash at the source should get the message across _real_fast_. In that it's, "broadcast", rather than targeted at an individual business, it should be effective in cutting out more of the nonsense than the targeted approach. So what do you think, any other/better ideas? On Apr 30, Edgar Suter wrote: >BOYCOTT OF "LIRR INCIDENT" SPONSORS GAINING STEAM > >Judging by copies of letters to NBC received to date, the initial >response is encouraging. But we need to spread the word and get more >people to contact NBC and let them know you and your family will >boycott any sponsors of "The Incident on Long Island" TV movie, set >to air May 3 on NBC. > >You will recall that this Barbra Streisand production is little more >than a promotional piece for anti-gun zealot Rep. Carolyn McCarthy >(D-NY), who is up for re-election this year. The TV movie reportedly >contains numerous mis-statements about guns and the Second Amendment, >as well as vicious attacks on the NRA and politicians who voted to >repeal the 1994 Clinton "assault weapon" ban. The movie exploits the >tragic Long Island Railroad massacre, the ensuing trial of >mass-murderer Colin Ferguson, and McCarthy's campaign for Congress to >boost McCarthy and slam the NRA and gun rights. > >A campaign is under way to fight this. Many people have already >contacted NBC and informed them that they will boycott all >sponsors who advertise on the program, explaining that we will >not stand for intentional distortions of fact and slander of the NRA, >RKBA, and our political allies. > >A list of sponsors will be circulated immediately after the May >3 broadcast. Efforts to ascertain sponors in advance are still >being made. > >Send your comments now to movies@nbc.com. > >and leave comments at their websites and landmail > >http://www.nbc.com/ > >(you can go to your local affiliate stations homepage by searching >w/ zipcode from this page) > >NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO INC. >Viewer Relations >30 Rockefeller Plaza >New York, NY >10112-0002 > >Phone Number: >(212) 664-4444 (ask for Viewer Relations, leave a recorded (likely) or > live message) > > >http://www.nbc4la.com/ (LA's KNBC channel 4; click on feedback) >KNBC TV - Comments >3000 W Alameda Ave, Burbank, CA 91523 >(818) 840-4444 (comments must be written) > > >Please continue to spread the word, and do your part! -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 1911a1@gte.net Subject: NRA Misfeasance in PA Date: 30 Apr 1998 16:35:48 CST PLEASE READ, FORWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! THE MEMBERS' MEETING IS IN PHILADELPHIA ON SATURDAY, JUNE 6, 1998, BEGINNING AT 10 AM. ALL CONCERNED MEMBERS SHOULD PLAN TO BE THERE! CALL MEMBER SERVICES AT 1-800-672-3888 FOR INFORMATION. ----- Begin Forwarded Message ----- Russ Laing's Letter to Bob Brown by Chris BeHanna NRA Life #CPC7725J The last three messages have introduced you to Act 17, NRA-ILA's boondoggle legislation that passed in Pennsylvania in 1995 (co-sponsored by HCI, no less!), and to Russ Laing, an NRA member who was bitten badly by Act 17 and who, HAVING COMMITTED NO CRIME, has had his right to keep and bear arms revoked FOR LIFE without due process of the law. What follows is Mr. Laing's letter to Bob Brown, a supporter of the "Winning Team" who worked on last year's "Vote Against" campaign and who has authored some patently ridiculous vituperation in this year's Board of Directors election. ----- Begin Russ Laing's Letter to Bob Brown Cc: acsl@nauticom.net Bcc: activist@sgi.net Robert K. Brown March 11, 1998 Dear Mr. Brown: I would like to comment on your editorial piece in the April 1998 edition of Soldier of Fortune Magazine ("Shameless Tactics of the Neal Knox Faction"). It was this same "Neal Knox Faction" that came to my defense, when abandoned and ignored by the NRA, I sought to defend the loss of my gun collection and my 2nd amendment rights based upon the invasion of my unlocked home by gun-waving members of a local police department. When, much to their surprise, found that the only "crime" I was committing was that of being asleep in my bedroom, they resorted to "committing" me to a local hospital for the reason of being "Unable to care for myself". I have no criminal record, I was not accused of committing any crime, and I have been involved in a very successful business career. This "commitment", done without a warrant of any kind and not involving any other hearing or adjudication process at any time was then invoked by these police officers to justify their confiscation of my gun collection - still locked in the combination safe that they dragged from my home! How did they get away with it? Because of Pennsylvania legislation passed in 1995 --SPONSORED AND HAILED BY THE NRA WINNING TEAM-- that now creates a permanent firearm disability for anyone who - like me - is taken by any local police officer for an emergency detention/evaluation --- even where such detention is initiated without a warrant of any kind, including not having a warrant to invade my home when their stated reason was that my employer was concerned that I had not called off sick from work! I contacted the NRA in May 1997, wrote a personal appeal to Charlton Heston, wrote to their Office of Legal Counsel (Bob Dowlut) numerous times and heard....nothing. It took the vigorous and repeated efforts of the "Neal Knox Faction" just to get NRA to acknowledge my situation, even though as a standing member of NRA I received numerous calls soliciting membership dues for future years during this same time period. In January of 1998, NRA finally reviewed the detail case file I sent and I received a phone call from an assistant to Mr. Dowlut (David Kaplan) who very smartly advised me that since I could sue for damages I must not need NRA's help! This was followed by a more civil letter from Mr. Dowlut turning down my request for assistance. [Note from Chris: David Caplan isn't Mr. Dowlut's assistant. Caplan is an NRA Director. See http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/caplan.html.] Mr. Brown, I can understand and respect the NRA directing its legal assistance to priorities it deems more urgent than my own situation. But let's remember that my situation would never have happened at all had the leadership of NRA not made a conscious decision to support legislation amending the PA Uniform Firearms Act (Act 17 of 1995) to now specifically allow for the lifelong loss of gunrights based on any local police officer's suspicion (or good old-fashioned bias/personal agenda) which need not be documented in something as basic as the need to obtain a warrant. In other words, NRA-sponsored Act 17 makes Pennsylvania the first state in the nation where an indidivual can have their guns siezed, lose all the 2nd amendment rights, and even be personally locked up for several days -- all without even the slightest due process: no warrant, no hearing before a judge, or other formal authority -- just a policeman's say-so will get the job done. Suspected felons, or even someone fighting a traffic ticket are given far more rights and protections than I -- as a gunowner -- was under NRA-sponsored Act 17. And what I CANNOT understand is that, as a member in good standing my appeals to NRA were ignored for some seven months and only then acted on when the "Neal Knox Faction" finally hounded them into at least giving me a serious reply (apart from Mr. Kaplan calling me up and mocking me over the phone). But we can make this all very straightforward: Why don't you simply ask the Winning Team to answer this question: Did you, the NRA leadership, sponsor PA Act 17 that provides for life-long loss of guns and gun rights, without any required due process protections, as guaranteed under both the Pennsylvania and Federal constitution(s)? Go ahead, ask them. And if you're man enough, then you can print their answer in Soldier of Fortune and we can all see exactly whose tactics are "shameless". I won't be able to read your reply, however, since I am cancelling my SOF subscription so that I can direct my money to the Neal Knox Faction and any other truly patriotic group that still believes in all of the constitution, even when the photo-op flashbulbs are going off. If this message gets around, I wonder how many others feel as I do? Sincerely, Russell G. Laing Are you interested in preventing this from happening to even more people? Vote for people who actually believe the Second Amendment means what it says, and says what it means: 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen David M. Gross* Robley T. Moore Michael J. Beko* John Guest Larry R. Rankin James A. Church Fred Gustafson Albert C. Ross* William Dominguez Don L. Henry* Frank H. Sawberger Howard J. Fezell* William B. Hunt Thomas L. Seefeldt Daniel B. Fiora* Phillip B. Journey* Kim Stolfer Arnold J. Gaunt Michael S. Kindberg* John H. Trentes Fred Griisser Jeff Knox Glen I. Voorhees Jr.* Wesley H. Grogan Jr.* John C. Krull Those with an asterisk have been deliberately targeted to be PURGED as "extremists." What's "extreme" about demanding your rights? Help NRA help you and support these candidates! 2. Visit their web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains candidate statements) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) U.S. mail point-of-contact: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, S.C. 29657 ----- End Forwarded Message ------------------------------------------------------ | If guns cause crime, | If you want my | | crime, all of mine are | guns, then you | | defective. | want a war. | |----------------------------------------------------- | Support the Chinese | If Charles Schumer didn't | | Underground! Buy an | exist, it would not be | | SKS and bury it! | necessary to invent him. | ------------------------------------------------------ -*-*-* Visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 *-*-*- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad <bdolan@usit.net> Subject: (fwd) Re: Oliver North - Winning Team Candidate (fwd) Date: 30 Apr 1998 20:38:57 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Oliver North has been recommended for re-election to the 1998-1999 > > Board of Directors by the NRA Nominating Committee. > > > VOTE FOR OLIVER NORTH! > > ---------------------------------------------- > > VOTE FOR THE WINNING TEAM! > Extracts from CIABASE about this fine member of the WINNING TEAM! Costa Rica, 89 Lt. Col. North, Secord, Poindexter, Tambs and former CIA station chief Fernandez declared persona non grata because their activities led to the establishing of narcotics nets. The Nation 12/18/89 742 Central America, 84-88 from early 84 to fall of 86, North directed a clandestine resupply operation "project democracy" which used a military airbase in El Salvador to fly weapons and supplies to the contras. for a year the DEA agent castillo investigated it. North's personal notebooks subpoenaed by congress contained one entry, for 7/12/85, "$14 million to finance came from drugs." Castillo, C. (1994). Powderburns 17,141 80-98 CIA acknowledged that cocaine traffickers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and it intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal inquiry into a cocaine ring with suspected links to the contras. CIA also admitted that it received intel from a law-enforcement agency as early as 1982 that a U.S. religious group was collaborating with the contras in a guns-for-drugs op. the admissions are buried in a 1/29/98 report. in the report's volume one, entitled "the california story," CIA inspector general hitz reasserts CIA contentions that key figures from the crack ring did not have direct ties to the CIA and that their donations to the contra cause were relatively small. toward the end of the report, the CIA includes broad admissions that many of webb's contentions were not only true, but understated the contra-cocaine connection. the consortium 2/16/98 Central America, 80-98 per the inspector general's report, CIA maintained contact with drug traffickers supporting contra Nicaraguan rebels in the 1980s. "dozens of people and a number of companies..." were involved in drug trafficking. that trafficking involved bringing drugs into the U.S. the information, will be detailed in a 600-page classified report scheduled to be sent to congress later this month. the ig also said that under an agreement in 1982 between then-attorney general william french smith and the CIA, Agency officers were not required to report allegations of drug trafficking involving non-employees -- defined as meaning paid and non-paid "assets [meaning agents], pilots who ferried supplies to the contras, as well as contra officials and others." this policy was modified in 1986 when CIA was prohibited from paying "U.S. dollars" (emphasis added) to any individual or company found to be involved in drug DEAling. rep. dicks, ranking democrat on the intel panel, called for more hearings, including possible testimony from Oliver l. North. Washington Post 3/17/98 a12 Central America, 81-85 DEA behind a film called doublecrossed, claiming CIA wanted cameras mounted on the c-119 and was ultimately responsible for the murder of barry seal in louisiana by a Colombian drug cartel. Central America, 84-96 following are excerpts from "powder burns," cocaine, contras & the drug connection, a book by retired DEA agent, cellerino castillo published in 1992. castillo has documented much of what he saw and DEA has refused to honor foia requirements. from early 1984 to the fall of 1986, (Lt. Col. Oliver) North directed a clandestine resupply op dubbed "project democracy," which used a military airbase in El Salvador to fly weapons and supplies to the contras. for the better part of a year, i investigated it. in El Salvador, military officers took weapons seized from the guerrillas and sold them to traffickers; in guatemala, i discovered members of our host government running a smuggling ring for the cartels. contra planes flew north to the U.S., loaded with cocaine, then returned laden with cash. all under the protective umbrella of the U.S. ny times "new media" forum on 10/8/96 Central America, 85-87 chief CIA's c.a. task force testified links between contras in Costa Rica and narcotics trafficking broader then earlier estimated.... it is not a couple of people it is a lot of people....we knew that everyone around pastora was involved in cocaine.... his staff and friends (redacted) they were drug smugglers or involved in drug smuggling. drugs, law enforcement and foreign policy, report by senate committee on foreign relations, 12/88, p37-8 Central America, 85-87 contra ops in (Costa Rica) were funded by drug operations. pilots unloaded weapons, refueled and headed north toward the U.S. with drugs. drugs, law enforcement and foreign policy, report by senate committee on foreign relations, 12/88 p41-2 Central America, 85-89 senator kerry said stopping drug traffic in U.S. sacrificed for political and institutional goals such as changing gvt in Nicaragua, supporting gvt in panama, using drug-running orgs as intel assets, etc. covert action information bulletin (now covert action quarterly) summer 90 6 Central America, 85 in personal diaries North kept in 85, he wrote down aide's tip that drugs being brought into U.S. on a contra supply plane. he recorded type of aircraft and a stop enroute - new orleans. in testimony he said he gave info to DEA but DEA says it has no such evidence. North declined an interview on subject. numerous officials said North never mentioned shipments. plane and crew continued be used as official carriers. North relied on robert owen, who traveled to Central America. nhao hired owen who secretly worked for North. North wrote in diary on 8/9/85: "honduran dc-6 which is being used for runs out of new orleans is probably being used for drug runs into U.S." next day he wrote "meeting with a.c. - name of DEA person in new orleans re bust on mario dc-6." a.c. could be adolofo calero, brother of mario, who in charge of shipping and warehouse op in new orleans. mario regularly used a dc-6 based in Honduras. jack lawn former head of DEA denied North gave any info re those flights. special DEA agent new orleans at time said they never received such info. mcfarlane did not know. nhao director duemling and 5 other nhao officials said North never told them. "on contrary" duemling said, "North wanted me to work with mario." details of regular nhao flights. only dc-4 listed in nhao records was miami-based vortex air international inc. one of whose key officers has long series of drug allegations. owen's memo of 2/26/86 reads: "no doubt you know the dc-4 foley got was used at one time to run drugs, and part of crew had criminal records." "nice group of guys the boys choose. the company is also one that mario has been involved with using in the past, only that had a quick name change. incompetence reigns." in owen's testimony, he identified foley as pat foley of summit aviation, which still operates in delaware and identified the boys as CIA. North's notebooks show he aware they were still working for Agency. vortex name appears twice, and one of its officers, who had numerous drug chargers - michael bernard palmer - appears twice. list of various charges against palmer. in 87 palmer was working for a gvt Agency. customs records at miami say that "normal customs service procedures for incoming flights are expedited" at request of unnamed Agency. in addition to vortex, senator's kerry's report listed diacsa as doing nhao work two foreign firms listed; setco air, a Costa Rican firm owned by alfredo caballero, and floyd carlton, who ran drug and money laundering op out of diacsa's miami offices. carlton pleaded guilty to cocaine conspiracy. Washington Post 10/22/94 a1,11 Central America, 98 Attorney General Renoa ordered justice IG to continue to withhold 400-page report on the CIA-crack cocaine controversy. citing "law enforcement concerns" that are not related to the report's conclusions, reno said the report should continue to be withheld until those concerns have ended. under the law cited by reno, among the info the ag can order withheld includes undercover ops and the identity of confidential sources such as protected witnesses. ig michael bromwich disagreed and said "i hope that we will be able to release the report in its entirety in the not-too-distant future." bromwich also said the CIA played no role in the delay and that nothing in the report is classified. report is the outgrowth of a year-long investigation by bromwich's staff into articles published in august 1996 by the san jose mercury news. last month, CIA ig hitz released a summary of his findings from his inquiry, which concluded there was no evidence to support the allegation of CIA involvement in the california crack cocaine trade. the complete CIA ig report, whose release was delayed in december by the justice department, is now expected to be made public late next week. Washington Post 1/24/9 a13 Central America, Nicaragua, 80-88 kerry's subcommittee issued a 1,166 page report on drug corruption in Central America and the caribbean that concluded "there was substantial evidence of drug smuggling through the war zones on the part of individual contras, contra suppliers, contra pilots, mercenaries who worked with the contras, and contra supporters throughout the region." "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was the perfect solution to the contra's funding problems." the committee discovered that state department contracts worth $806,000 went to no fewer than four aid conduits owned and operated by narcotics traffickers. one of these was setco air, a honduran cargo firm hired by state to transport goods to the contras in 85 and 86. firm a front for ramon matta ballesteros a class i DEA violator. Reagan adm protection of matta, represented a bigger blow to the war on drugs than smuggling ops of any particular resistance group. matta practically owned Honduras, where he corrupted the same ruling military officers whom the CIA relied on. the CIA blocked a proposal by DEA agents and the DEA shut down its office in tegucigalpa. Honduras then became a booming center for multi-ton loads of Colombian cocaine. marshall, j. (1991). Drug Wars 44-5 Central America, Nicaragua, 81-96 jack blum, helped run kerry investigation. a former senior CIA officer said that from 1981 to 1984 Agency case officers working in field with contra "weren't making themselves fully aware of drug activity. we were focused on building up" the contras. clarridge, in 1981 was chosen to head ops against sandinistas. he said his interest in drugs was documenting cocaine trafficking by sandinistas. morales case, seems to remain best-documented example of a contra group cooperating with a drug trafficker and receiving substantial aid in return. per pastora and chamorro, morales -- who was convicted in 1986 of drug trafficking and died in prison in 1991 -- contributed at least two airplanes and $90,000 to the pastora group, known by its spanish initials arde. in sworn testimony to the kerry committee and a separate court case before he died, morales said he gave airplanes and cash to contras because he was promised by chamorro that contras would use their influence with the U.S. to help with his legal problems. although imprisoned, he told kerry committee that he had in fact received some legal help. Washington Post 10/31/96 a1 CIA involved in drug traffic at three levels: 1. coincidental complicity by allying with groups engaged in traffic; 2. support of traffic by covering up known traffickers and condoning their involvement; 3. active engagement in transport of opium and heroin. mccoy, a.w. (1991). the politics of heroin: CIA complicity in the global drug traffic 23 Costa Rica, 89 Lt. Col. North, secord, poindexter, tambs and former CIA station chief fernandez declared persona non grata because their activities led to the establishing of narcotics nets. The Nation 12/18/89 742 Costa Rica, Nicaragua, 80-91 in april 91 Costa Rica asked U.S. to extradite CIA operative john hull to stand trial on homicide charges. hull was allegedly at center of North's illegal contra supply net. Costa Rican authorities accuse hull of allowing his ranch to be used as an arms-for-drugs swap meet. hull indicted in connection with bombing attempt against eden pastora in la penca, Nicaragua. 5 died in bombing. washington post 5/26 91 d7 Central America, 86 smuggler michael tolliver paid to fly arms to contras then allowed to return to U.S. with drugs. he would find his own return load or be supplied with a network run by Oliver North. once landed plane with 25,000 lbs marijuana at homestead air base in fla. drug route protected by CIA. the progressive 4/88 11 Colombia, Nicaragua, 84 drug Dealer ochoa, kingpin of medellin cartel was capture. DEA proposed a deal if ochoa would implicate sandinistas. he refused. CIA, DEA and bush's newly formed antidrug task force used barry seal to try to implicate sandinistas in drug traffic. seal testified he photoed sandinista soldiers and an official. seal a part of supply net supervised by CIA and North. c-123 used by seal to implicate sandinistas later shot down with hasenfus. The Nation 9/5/87 p189-192 documents reveal that in 86 North, gen. paul gorman, CIA man dewey clairridge, and elliot abrams lobbied justice dept to treat leniently Honduras' gen. jose abdenego bueso rosa who was involved in plot to kill honduran president roberto suazo cordova. iran contra report does not mention name of conspirator nor central am leader. also, report does not mention that gen. rosa, former head of honduran armed forces joint command, was contra supporter and was to fund op thru cocaine smuggling into U.S. american officials feared rosa might talk about contra drug ops if justice dept did not go easy on him. The Nation 12/5/87 p668 latin america, 71-75 CIA immunized no fewer than 27 federal drug cases. DEA said starting with dcis colby and george bush, CIA poached from both DEA's pool of informants and investigative targets. when DEA arrested them they used CIA as protection and because of CIA involvement they were released. this amounted to a license to traffic for life because even if they were arrested in the future, they could demand classified documents about their prior CIA involvement and would have to be let go. CIA knew their assets were drug smugglers. marshall, j. (1991). Drug Wars 41 middle east, england, 85-91 chuck lewis, then associated press's washington bureau chief met "six or seven" times with Oliver North over hostage situation. reporters who wrote contra stories, robert parry and brian barger, said lewis delayed publication of several of their stories for weeks or months. reporters not told of meetings. "if he was Dealing with Oliver North on terry anderson, at a minimum he shouldn't have insisted on editing our stories on North,..." barger said the delayed articles involved allegations of drug trafficking, corruption and CIA involvement with the contras. "on some of these stories we had 2 or 3 dozen sources." Washington Post 12/14/91 c1,8 Nicaragua. federico vaughan: official of Nicaraguan sandinistas whose picture allegedly taken with pablo escobar by barry seal as part of a U.S. government-financed sting operation. scott, p. & marshall, j. (1991). Cocaine Politics 263 Nicaragua, 79-96 british media expose CIA-cocaine links by norman solomon. "the CIA actively encouraged drug- trafficking in order to fund right-wing contra rebels in Nicaragua during the 1980s, and a CIA agent in Nicaragua was employed to ensure the money went to the contras and not into the pockets of drug barons." the independent, summarized conclusions of investigative journalists working for britain's itv television network. their findings aired dec.12 on a highly regarded program called "the big story." british news reports included statements by carlos cabezas, who was a pilot for the Nicaraguan air force before the sandinistas came to power in 1979. during the early 1980s, cabezas transported cocaine from central america to california. he ended up spending six years in prison after the 1983 seizure of 430 pounds of cocaine in the san francisco bay. cabezas said that he delivered cocaine proceeds to contra leaders in miami and Costa Rica. cabezas said in Costa Rica he met CIA agent ivan gomez, who responsible for overseeing transfer of drug profits to the contras. article from "media beat" syndicated column. norman solomon mediabeat igc.apc.org 1/1/97 Nicaragua, 84-85 drug trafficker jorge morales claimed CIA approached him in 1984 offering him legal protection if he agreed to fly weapons to contras while returning with drugs. weapons were loaded at opa-locka airport near miami or executive airport in fort lauderdale and flown to Honduras, Costa Rica or El Salvador. $4.5 million in drug profits went to contras. op went on for 18 months with full U.S. gov knowledge. eddy, p. (1988). the cocaine wars 327-332 panama, 71-91 motion in noriega's trial describes CIA efforts to arm Nicaraguan contras - a guns-for-drugs policy. many heavy deletions re his two meetings with bush, dci casey, and Oliver North. "noriega called upon defuse situations which threatened U.S. interests in Central America and elsewhere." prosecutors acknowledged noriega paid 161,000 by CIA dating from 1971 and another 162,168 from army. Washington Post 9/4/91 a1,4 panama, 86 North with approval sec state shultz and abrams met noriega aide in england to talk about aid to contras. at time there extensive reporting re noriega's drug trafficking. Washington Post 4/9/89 a18 -