From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Klinton Hands Over Internet to Int'l Group (fwd) Date: 01 May 1998 02:22:12 PST Check it out gang, this could affect our commo negatively..... On Apr 30, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] (Rec'v from Ralph@teaminfinity.com) WHITE HOUSE PLANS TO TURN OVER MANAGEMENT OF INTERNET TO INTERNATIONAL NON-PROFIT GROUP... AP April 29, 1998 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Clinton administration's final plan to turn over management of the Internet to an international non-profit group will likely be released within the next two weeks, the White House official in charge of the project said Wednesday. The plan will radically change how the burgeoning Internet is organized and effectively end the U.S. government's role as a data traffic cop. At best, the changes would be virtually transparent to users. At worst, they could result in chaos and raise serious questions about the stability of the Internet, which has become a vital conduit for information and commerce. Ira Magaziner, the White House senior policy adviser responsible for the changeover, told an Internet conference in New York on Wednesday he expects the final proposal to be finished within two weeks. But he's also told industry insiders recently the paper may be completed as early as next week. A deadline looms. The government's contract with Network Solutions Inc., the Herndon, Va.-based company that currently assigns addresses on the World Wide Web, expired March 31 and was extended six months, until the end of September. But there are no provisions for another contract extension. "At that point, things have got to be clear, up and functioning, or it could be a little questionable about what happens," said Don Heath, president of the Internet Society, who met with Magaziner earlier this week. Heath said he expects the administration will immediately suggest three new Web address suffixes, called domains. Current domains include .com, .net and .org. The administration hasn't described what new domains it might suggest, but proposals have included .firm, .web, .arts., .nom, .rec, .info and .store. The now suffixes would greatly expand the Web's current 1.6 million estimated addresses. Critics contend that the landslide of possible new site names could make it even more difficult to find information on the Internet and create headaches for companies trying to protect their trademarks. But Supporters argue that the new domains could help organize the Web, which can be chaotic for newcomers. The administration released a draft of its plan in January, then asked for public comment before rewriting it. More than 430 people and organizations responded. Heath said the administration has heeded criticisms from overseas that, even under the new plan, the Internet would still be too U.S.-centric, largely because the yet-to-be-formed international non-profit group would be based in the United States. "A lot of the decisions for the future will come out of this," Heath said. "That's appropriate for the new Internet. It puts it out the hands of the U.S. government and in the hands of the Internet's self-governing mechanism." "I anticipate (Magaziner) has heard the international community loud and clear," he added. In reviewing the public comments, the administration noted the "principle of globalism received strong support" and said many people wrote that "the Internet has grown from its U.S. roots into a global medium." Earlier this year, Network Solutions announced that Internet address registrations outside the United States represented about one-fourth of website name requests. [------------------------- 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 May 1998 02:23:02 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: Subject: IP: Court Rejects TX Separatist Group's Theories (fwd) Date: 01 May 1998 08:55:09 -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 Post Lone Star State Stays Put Court Rejects Separatist Group's Theories By Bill Miller Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 1, 1998; Page A02=20 This just in: Texas is part of the United States. A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that Texas became the nation's 28th state in 1845 and remains so to this day. He rejected arguments raised in a lawsuit filed by leaders of a Texas separatist group.= =20 Judge Paul L. Friedman's eight-page decision came in a case filed by Richard and Evelyn McLaren, leaders of the so-called Republic of Texas. The McLarens and their supporters contend that Texas was illegally annexed. The couple gained national attention a year ago when they and their followers staged a week-long standoff against 300 law enforcement officers at their compound in the remote Davis Mountains of western Texas. Richard McLaren claimed he was the "ambassador and consul general" of the Republic of Texas. He is serving a 99-year prison term for holding two people hostage during the incident. Just before the standoff ended, McLaren and Texas Ranger Capt. Barry Caver signed a pact labeled "International Agreement and Terms of Cease-Fire." The agreement included a provision stating that the Republic of Texas intended to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington seeking its independence. The McLarens named a host of defendants, including President Clinton, Vice President Gore and other federal and state officials. The United States, Mexico and the United Nations also were named in the complaint. Friedman's opinion was filled with citations of law and history. He noted that Anson Jones, the last president of the Republic of Texas, attended a ceremony marking the end of independence and the beginning of statehood.=20 "The history of how Texas became a state is admittedly tortuous," Friedman wrote. "Indeed, Texas' statehood tale is plagued with political stalling, confusion and delay from 1836, the year in which the Republic of Texas won its independence from Mexico, to 1845, the year in which Texas finally became one of the United States of America. The tale is even more complicated by the fact that Texas attempted to secede from the United States before the Civil War. On December 29, 1845, however, Texas did in fact become the 28th state." Friedman said that any question about the statehood issue was laid to rest by a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued in 1868. "It is the precedent by which this Court and all courts of the United States are bound," he wrote.= =20 "The Republic of Texas no longer exists." The battle over independence is not the only struggle the McLarens are waging in the courts. They were convicted last month of federal fraud in Texas for using worthless "Republic of Texas" checks to obtain roughly $3.4 million in goods, including a lease on a Learjet and other luxuries. = =20 =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post 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: Subject: IP: More Money for Covert Ops (fwd) Date: 01 May 1998 08:53:24 -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 Post Panel Boosts Funding For Covert Operations By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 1, 1998; Page A12=20 The House intelligence committee has increased "marginally" the roughly $27 billion President Clinton has proposed to spend next year on the nation's intelligence agencies, allocating additional funds to modernize interception of worldwide telecommunications and revitalize the CIA's clandestine spy service, according to a statement the panel released. One of the beneficiaries of new spending would be the National Security Agency (NSA), which has relied chiefly on space-based satellites or ground-based antennas for its eavesdropping, one source said yesterday. Based at Fort Meade, Md., NSA now "needs new computers and new tools to get into the new data streams that are crisscrossing the world," this intelligence expert said. Some of the funds for new NSA equipment are to come from reductions in spending next fiscal year by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the multibillion-dollar organization that builds and manages the intelligence satellite program, sources said. Clandestine human intelligence programs run by the CIA's Directorate of Operations (DO) were another priority identified by the House panel for more funding in its markup of the Intelligence Authorization Bill for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. The agency's spy service, reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, has been in public disrepute since the 1994 arrest of the spy Aldrich H. Ames. CIA Director George J. Tenet and deputy director for operations Jack Downing have been pressing Congress for more funds to rebuild the directorate and reestablish agency posts in places such as Africa, where almost all the CIA stations were closed down over the past six years.=20 For much of the 1990s, another source said, reducing the DO was an easy way to save money because it was cheaper to have case officers back in Washington, a change that automatically sliced the number of operations and agents run overseas. "They gutted activities," this source said, "and put us in danger of being less than a global service." In seeking more funds for CIA human intelligence, Tenet and Downing have noted that some supporters of terrorism operate in African countries such as Sudan. CIA officials have told Congress that by having case officers operating in certain African countries, there is a better chance to track terrorists and of Chinese and Russian activities there and in other countri= es. The House panel, as part of its plan for "revitalizing" the Directorate of Operations, has recommended small increases in funding to hire additional personnel over coming years for operations that are long-range rather than short-term, sources said. With operations directed at targets such as terrorism and arms proliferation, one veteran CIA official said new personnel requirements call less for recent college graduates and more for older personnel with language qualifications and overseas experience who could be transferred into the agency. Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the intelligence committee and a former CIA clandestine officer, said yesterday the panel saw "the need for concerted focus on signals intelligence, human intelligence, all-source analysis and our covert action capabilities."=20 Only marginal amounts of money were added for hiring new analysts, sources said. The panel's ranking Democrat, Rep. Norman D. Dicks (Wash.), said the bill "marginally exceeds the president's budget request" and provides investment "in areas where technological advances or lack of emphasis have weakened our capabilities." Tenet yesterday appeared in closed session before the Senate intelligence panel to discuss the agency's espionage and covert action programs. That committee, which is expected to mark up its version of the authorization bill next week, also has made additional funding for NSA one of its goals, according to sources.=20 =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post 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: Subject: IP: Keyes: You say you want a revolution? (fwd) Date: 01 May 1998 09:06:42 -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: WorldNetDaily Alan Keyes Exclusive commentary=20 You say you want a revolution? These are dark days for lovers of liberty and the American Republic. Evidence is mounting that our entire political elite has cast its lot with government by the arrogant and unaccountable few. The abandonment of national and local sovereignty is now a habit with leaders of both parties, whether it be the betrayal of American sovereignty to the World Trade Organization, or of state and local sovereignty to a Congress that wants to dictate legal blood alcohol levels to the states. And the role of moral principle in our public life is, shall we say, obscure at the moment.=20 Are we close to the moment when we will need a second "shot heard round the world," and face the obligation that our Founders did of declaring the old way dead and a revolution inevitable?=20 I actually don't think we are very close at all. The main difference between our situation and that of the Americans of the pre-Revolutionary period is that one of the grievances they had was precisely that the process for redress of grievance was shut down. They had tried various means within their colonial legislatures, but many of those bodies had been shut down. Revolution was ultimately justified by the impossibility of seeking justice without it. We can make no such claim today.=20 If we want to make a revolution -- perhaps "restoration" would be the better word -- all we have to do is get up off our behinds. It's the easiest thing in the world to make real political change in America.=20 The only thing that really determines political power in this country is who shows up at the voting booth, the caucuses, and the party precinct meetings. When principled and courageous people have actually worked their hearts out, they have made real progress and achieved real power.=20 In fact, I will remain a Republican, and not encourage conservatives to join in a third-party movement, until we have made full use of the obvious opportunities that the grass roots conservative majority has labored to create within the party. If we do that, we will sweep the corrupt establishment aside and fashion the Republican Party into the national instrument for political renewal that America so desperately needs.=20 Yet, in politics, most conservatives make more excuses than progress, because we are not willing to take risks. We don't have the guts our Founding Fathers had. They risked bullets, while most conservatives today apparently won't even risk the embarrassment of supporting a losing candidate in order to take a stand for principle. This is probably most of the explanation, in fact, for the implosion of resolve in our supposedly revolutionary conservative Congress.=20 And it is certainly the explanation for getting people like Bob Dole as our presidential nominee. Supposedly smart conservative "operators" have been leading grass roots conservatives down the road of calculation and concession, because they have accepted the servile and false view that "the media" and "the establishment" can prevent a free people from acting to correct what ails us.=20 We could turn this country around overnight if half the conservatives who talk a good game would be willing to make one simple commitment -- to select, in each election, the candidate who is in fact best for the job according to principle, and then make a modest effort to support that candidate, regardless of conventional analyses of the chances for success.= =20 We are encouraged by the media and by our political leaders to believe that we are helpless, because they know that a relatively few determined citizens can make a powerful difference. Americans, including conservatives, are increasingly just spectators and passive consumers of politics. We watch, comment, speculate, moan and groan, but are not willing to take action.=20 So the question really becomes whether conservatives themselves remain fit for self-government. Will we continue grumpily to suppress our better hopes, and accept a new order that can satisfy our material passions, but not our souls?=20 We can have all the money and sex and comfort we want, and we can be secure, if we just agree to stay in our comfortable chairs watching our national life on television, and give up our active power to others, letting them shape our destiny instead of the sovereign people who are supposed to shape it. This is the velvet-glove despotism all our leaders are offering now.=20 That mindset is evident even in much of the Republican leadership, as they help lure us into the phony belief that somebody else is going to take care of us. That's how the liberals have led us down the garden path all these years, and now we have big-government "conservatives" taking the same approach.=20 The real aim of our politics must be self-government, and self-government literally cannot be retained by a passive people. We can keep our freedom only by continually claiming it anew, and we can effectively claim it only by undertaking the hard work of actually governing ourselves.=20 Before grumbling about lighting the fires of revolution, we ought to summon the energy at least to get out of our chairs and go humbly to work to preserve the liberty we have inherited.=20 Alan Keyes is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. His program can be heard via Real Audio at http://www.alankeyes.com.=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: Subject: IP: Saddam's biological arsenal could kill tens of millions (fwd) Date: 01 May 1998 08:56:03 -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 Saddam's biological arsenal could kill tens of millions By Martin Sieff THE WASHINGTON TIMES Seven years after Iraq was forced to accept international inspections at the end of the Gulf war, President Saddam Hussein appears more confident than ever that his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons will keep him safe. Armed with enough power to kill tens of millions of people, analysts say, it is just a matter of time until he provokes another crisis by trying to disrupt the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. Even before the U.N. Security Council this week renewed its economic sanctions on Iraq for another six months, Saddam was issuing veiled warnings that he might retaliate against the countries that voted in favor. Iraq's ruling Revolutionary Command Council and its Ba'ath party leadership warned April 16 that any countries that maintained the economic embargo "will carry the burden of the previous crises as well as the crises to come and for any harm inflicted on our people." Laurie Mylroie, a biographer of the Iraqi leader, said, "Minimally, Saddam seems to be planning another challenge, akin to the two that have already occurred" in October 1997 and January 1998. "Saddam has benefited for provoking each of the past two crises, while he has suffered no penalty. Why shouldn't he provoke a third?" Saddam's confidence, experts said, comes from two sources: his increasingly accurate reading of U.S. and Western responses to his actions and his apparent belief that he can inflict devastating casualties on those who oppose him. "The Clinton administration's biggest problem in dealing with Saddam has been that it makes threats to inflict serious damage upon him and then doesn't follow through on them," said Dov S. Zakheim of the Center for Strategic and and International Studies, former deputy undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "Saddam's calculations are different from those of most of us," said Miss Mylroie, of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. "He has a rare understanding of how to use force and violence in political affairs. Thus, he surprises. And he sees weakness in Washington." Iraq has enough deadly biological agents to kill every human being on earth, according to a Feb. 4 report by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British government. Baghdad also has the capability to inflict devastating attacks of incurable anthrax and other diseases on U.S. military personnel in the Gulf region, according to U.S. military intelligence assessments. On March 3, the Pentagon announced an accelerated anthrax vaccination program for U.S. military personnel serving in the Gulf. At a press conference, Lt. Gen. Ronald Blancke, the Army surgeon general, said nothing could be done for the victims of an anthrax attack once they showed symptoms. Officials of the U.N. Special Commission (Unscom), which is charged with finding and destroying Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, say Iraq bought 39 tons of growth medium, the basic compound needed for biological agents, before 1990. Each ton can yield 10 tons of biological agent. Seventeen of these 39 tons --enough to kill 50 million to 60 million people -- are still unaccounted for, Rolf Ekeus, then Unscom chief, told a meeting at the Carnegie Institute on Ethics and Social Responsibility in 1996. Anthrax, a virus that causes hemorrhaging in the lungs and is almost invariably fatal to human and animal life, has never been used in war. Some experts believe Iraq has the devastating option of unleashing deadly plague viruses covertly on the U.S. civilian population while retaining a plausible deniability that it had done so. It is ironic that U.S. policy-makers face this dilemma only seven years after one of the most low-casualty and successful military campaigns in history, the 1991 Gulf war. But a series of miscalculations by both the Bush and Clinton administrations allowed Saddam's regime to survive after the war. "There is now pretty much of a consensus that we should have destroyed the Republican Guard [Saddam's elite units] in the Gulf war," said Mr. Zakheim. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations also allowed Iraq to retain a major biological weapons potential and the infrastructure to rapidly expand it because they didn't realize how much was there in the first place, said Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "In retrospect, it would appear that we badly underestimated the progress Iraq had made on these programs," Mr. Clawson said. The full extent of the Iraqi program was revealed in August 1995 when Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam's son-in-law, defected to Jordan with his family, bringing enormous quantities of top-secret documents with him. That information, later verified by Unscom investigators, shocked U.N. arms inspectors and U.S. government experts. They revealed that by the time of the Gulf war, the Iraqi biological and chemical weapons production programs were far more advanced than U.S. policy-makers had dreamed possible. Gen. Kamel's papers, and revelations by other Iraqi defectors, also showed that the month-long U.S.-led air bombardment of Iraq at the beginning of the Gulf war had not destroyed a single SCUD missile, and that Iraq still had at least 45 of them. Neither Bush nor Clinton policy-makers appear to have understood the ease with which biological weapons can be developed. "Any country that can make pesticides can make weapons of mass destruction," said military analyst John Hillen of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Clawson agreed, saying, "Iraq's biological and chemical programs can be restarted relatively quickly. Much of the switchover required in conventional factories and laboratories to prepare for work on them can be done very, very quickly," he said. 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: Subject: IP: Bill Gates Gives To Population Control Fund (fwd) Date: 01 May 1998 13:17:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/theworld/gateshel.htm Bill Gates Gives To Population Control Fund NEW YORK -- The pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) announced on Wednesday that Microsoft Co. chairman Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in the United States, donated $1.7 million to the fund which seeks to "limit population growth" in poor nations through abortion. The William H. Gates Foundation, founded by the technology tycoon and his wife, gave the money to cover a three-year grant for population programs, including a nation-to-nation technology exchange, and for a five-year review of the pro-abortion 1994 Cairo population conference. The Gates foundation has been active in the population and reproductive science fields, awarding previous grants for research oncontraceptives and last year giving Johns Hopkins University money to use technologyto address the so-called over- population problem. Gates, who has a reported net worth of $40 billion, joins thelist of big-name donors to the UN which includes media tycoon Ted Turner whogave the organization a $1 billion, five-year grant last October for use in several projects. The Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List http://www.prolife.org/ultimate It is time to send Bill Gates some E-Mail and let him know what we think of his baby killing. Send E-Mail to Killer Bill at: http://www.asia.microsoft.com/BillGates/email.htm ********************************************** 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: Fratrum: URGENT! WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (please fwd) (fwd) Date: 02 May 1998 13:58:27 PST On May 2, Jo wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I am passing this on with one comment from me: I would suggest only adults call, I don't think my 14 yr old son's voice will be given much credibility, and could possibly damage our reputations! If I can call (ugh) Durbin and Mosely-Braun with NO HOPE for affirmation, I would also beg that you call your senators. Our literal future is at stake here! Jo <>< >American Policy Center >http://www.americanpolicy.org >================================================== >URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT > SHOWDOWN TIME ON S.1186 > VOTE IS SET FOR TUESDAY, MAY 5TH > > Remember, S.1186 (the Workforce Investment >Partnership Act) is the final piece to the evil >triangle of education restructuring (with Goals 2000 >and School-To-Work). Powerful forces including the >White House, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the >National Governor's Association, are pushing hard >for passage. > >BUT WITH A MASSIVE SHOW OF FORCE NOW - WE CAN STOP >THIS BILL! > > ACTION TO TAKE > > > >1. JAM TRENT LOTT'S PHONES - 202-224-3135 > > Call Senate Majority Leader Lott. Don't argue > > - just tell his staff you oppose S.1186 and > > urge him not to bring it to a vote. Have every > > member of your family call - separately. The > > number of calls opposing the bill count here. > > > >2. JAM YOUR SENATOR'S PHONES > > Call Capitol Switchboard - 202-224-3121 > > (toll free numbers have been disconnected) > > Call both of your state's U.S. Senators. Tell > > them to vote no on S.1186. Keep calling. Again > > numbers count. A huge number of calls from our > > side will get reported to Senate leadership - > > and could stop the vote. Remember, our > > opponents are calling too. > > > >3. Pass this alert on to as many friends, > > neighbors and family members as possible. Urge > > them to call. Their children and grandchildren > > will be affected too. > > > > OUR BATTLE HAS SUCCEEDED SO FAR - KEEP IT UP. > > > >THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP THIS ASSAULT ON OUR >SCHOOLS > > > > SHUT DOWN THE CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD > > > > CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL AND CALL AGAIN > > > >================================================== >Powered by Webforums >Copyright 1998 Waveshift Inc. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The best cure for an empty day or a longing heart is to find people who need you. Look, the world is full of them. Anonymous ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [------------------------- 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 #83 (fwd) Date: 03 May 1998 15:56:18 PST On May 03, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia May 3, 1998 #83 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.jollytax.org/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html CLINTON SOLD OUR SECURITY Prestidigitation, it's called. That's the crafty art of creating a diversion, such as to divert attention during a "magic" trick. We're seeing another form now, in Washington and the media, orchestrated primarily by Hillary's disinformation cabal in the White House. The diversion is sex, as in Jones, Wiley, Lewinsky, etc., etc. These stories are continued because, in the grand scheme of things, they are nearly inconsequential. Whereas, the misdeeds not being discussed while we talk of the sexual peccadilloes of the philander-in-chief could have a very costly and long-term affect on the people of the United States. Also, the sex scandals will not be impeachable offenses, whereas what they are diverting attention from most certainly are. Just a few months ago, the hot story was how communist China was able to launder money into the Clinton & Gore and DNC campaign coffers. When one reads the transcripts of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/), or the House Government Reform Committee (http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings.htm), it quickly becomes evident how extensive that illegal money laundering was. Even though the whole of that story is not complete (i.e. conclusively proven), there is more than enough information available to indict dozens of people involved in the Clinton & Gore Campaign Committee and the DNC conspiracy. Yet, interestingly enough, that is one of the very few impeachable acts that does not have a special prosecutor investigating. Instead, the Reno Justice Department is supposedly looking into it. Somewhat. The actual problem is much more important than just the few million dollars the communist Chinese "contributed" to Clinton and others for considerations. The true problem goes to the security of the people of the United States. The subject being diverted is the considerations the Red Chinese received for that money -- and those considerations were considerable. As Timothy W. Maier reported in the May 4 issue of Insight magazine: "Two U.S. firms are accused of illegally helping the Chinese develop ICBMs that can hit the United States." A Pentagon report said Hughes Electronics and Loral Space and Communications caused "national security harm" by selling sophisticated electronic technology to China. Both companies were investigated, of course. But just as charges were ready to be filed, Clinton approved the sale of similar equipment to China by Loral. Interestingly enough, Loral's CEO, Bernard Schwartz, just happens to be the largest personal contributor to the DNC last year. Reports vary, but it seems that he has contributed between two and three million dollars over the past few years. In other words, Clinton & Gore and the DNC were collecting from both the domestic high-tech equipment sellers and the foreign high-tech equipment purchasers. That's a rather convenient arrangement. The problem is that this is top-secret military equipment that was sold to the communists. We taxpaying Americans cannot see this equipment, but the communists in China now own some of it. Apparently, the Chinese also had a ace in the hole at Loral. A Corporate Vice President, Dr. Wah Lim, is a foreign national from China. In itself, that wouldn't be a big deal. Lim did part of his studies here, and it's only natural for him to wish to work in his chosen field of electronics. But, top secret military electronics? Wah Lim's father, by the way, just happens to be a high ranking government banker in China. That could be very handy for Loral, who wishes to sell expensive equipment there. But that certainly does not speak well for those in the federal government charged with protecting our high-tech military secrets. They issued Lim a top secret clearance. With that kind of leak, the Chinese could be using the newest and best of our electronic equipment even before our military has a chance to try it. We were told by a well placed source in the industry that, "Dr. Lim was considered enough of a security risk when he was an employee of Northrop Corporation that he was denied a clearance to work on the B-2 bomber. Because that risk assessment has not changed significantly since then, it seems that it is not proper for Dr. Lim to be handling other of our country's top military data." Furthermore, "Dr. Lim was known to improperly access military data when he worked as a lower level employee of Loral Corporation, even entering another employee's secured safe to remove secret documents without that employee's knowledge or approval." As it turned out, even though there was plenty of work, the American employee reporting that serious breach of security at Loral was laid off shortly thereafter. Dr. Lim stayed. The sorry fact is that, by continually replaying the soap-opera of Clinton sex scandals, the national media totally missed an illegal transfer of technology that could someday get thousands of American citizens blown right off the face of the earth. But, Clinton needed the money to get elected, so apparently the China connection is not a newsworthy story for the liberal media. TIME FOR CLINTON TO PAY THE PIPER Last week it was Rep. Dan Burton, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, telling the editorial board of The Indianapolis Star: "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." This week, the whole Republican leadership of the United States House of Representatives picked up the gauntlet. They've apparently thrown the implied threats of secret police investigations and potential blackmail by Hillary's disinformation cabal to the wind and decided to do the right thing. Showing a surprising amount of intestinal fortitude for an election year, they are gearing up to expose the ongoing corruption in the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team and the DNC for all of America to see. Then, they plan to take appropriate action. Of course, a couple of them have already had a glimpse at some of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's evidence, and the House has reams of information concerning money laundering by and for the Clinton campaign committee and the DNC. The millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds came, of course, from both American labor unions and communist China. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich lead off the accusations with comments to the GOPAC political action group early in the week (http://www.gopac.com/library/newt98.htm). Therein, Gingrich described Kenneth Starr as an "officer of the Department of Justice" and said criticism of the independent counsel has gone overboard: "The fact is that if he [Clinton] wants to fire Ken Starr, he can do it in the morning. And if he doesn't want to fire Ken Starr, he should tell his staff to shut up because there is something profoundly demeaning and destructive to have the White House systematically undermine an officer of the Department of Justice. And when I watch these paid hacks on television, to be quite honest, I am sickened by how unpatriotically they undermine the Constitution of the United States on behalf of their client." Right on! Finally Newt's taking a stand. Burton was right. The term "scumbag" fits them nicely. Newt continues: "What you have lived through for two and a half long years, is the most systematic, deliberate, obstruction of justice cover up in an effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in American history. And the time has come to say to the Democrats and to say to the President quit undermining the law in the United States. Turn over the evidence, agree to the witnesses, have the hearings. The American people have the right to know the truth." Gingrich also commented on the controversy over whether Secret Service agents should act like police officers and testify against the president: "I don't get it," Newt said. "This is not some 'shall we gossip about the president.' . . . This is about the rule of law. This is about the heart of America. No person in America is above the rule of law." Then, in a speech before the Atlanta Rotary Club, Gingrich continued the thought: "There is no question there are very, very serious allegations, starting with $700,000 being paid to Hubbell, who is a convicted felon. I think any honest American can conclude [that giving] $700,000 to a convicted felon is hush money. That is a very, very serious violation." Later in the week, The Speaker took to the House floor and, in a similar speech, accused the Democrats who voted against immunity for four witnesses in the campaign-finance investigation as obstructing justice. He then demanded another vote. "When the people breaking the law are foreign nationals trying to corrupt the United States by bringing in foreign money -- in some cases in a deliberate effort in collusion with billionaires in Asia -- we have every reason as a national security matter to protect our political system," Newt told the House. "For some reason, Democrats voted 19-0 to cover up this testimony. That means they voted 19-0 to block it from getting to the American people and to prevent the Congress from being informed." "If [President Clinton] doesn't want to fire Ken Starr, he should tell his staff to shut up," Gingrich continued. "I am sickened by how unpatriotically they undermine the Constitution of the United States." Newt said there were two principles "which I am prepared to live and die on. The first is that the American people have the right to know about basic facts. And the second is that we are a nation under the rule of law and no person, including the president, is above the law. . . . I will never again, as long as I am speaker, make a speech without commenting on this topic." And then, in typical Newt Gingrich style, came a pointed history lesson: "Howard Baker understood that Richard Nixon could not be allowed to take the entire Republican Party and the Constitution down in flames and that his job as a United States senator was to get at the truth, and Howard Baker again and again and again cooperated with the Democrat Chairman Sam Ervin," Gingrich said. He added that Democrats "ought to be ashamed" at their actions and "ought to be helping us get at the truth rather than finding some flimsy excuse to avoid voting for immunity." Look for the Republicans to be out in force talking about this corruption. Because maybe, just maybe, we are about to see some action. Starr cleared most of his calendar, possibly for a year or more, and is actively shuttling between the grand juries in Little Rock and Washington. Better yet, he's got a big smile on his face lately. Last week, after questioning Hillary again, Starr was thanked, congratulated and applauded at the Little Rock airport. We think it's time he got a little recognition. Starr deserves retribution too. As two House committees investigate the campaign corruption of the Clinton, Clinton & Gore conspiracy, and Starr increases pressure by threatening indictments on assorted other topics, middle America sits back and watches history in the making. Not yet admitted by a definitely biased national media is the fact that this may be the first time in our nation's history that the whole of the administration is dismissed (and maybe convicted) simultaneously. And that is as it should be. They are all party to the corrupt practices and obstruction conspiracies together, and they should all fall together. Nail Clinton, Clinton & Gore at the same time. That done, we would be pleased to present President Newt with a copy of his speeches on the Federalist Papers and the Original Intent of the authors of our Constitution -- just as a reminder. THE UN USURPS OUR FREEDOM As we reported earlier, Bill Clinton, encouraged by his power hungry Marxist wife, wants much more than to be just a world leader. Clinton wants to be "the" world leader. Nearly everything they do nowadays (besides ducking impeachment), is in preparation for that goal. For instance, Hillary's choice for Secretary of State, Madeline Albright was out attacking UN critics recently. We should note here that in her previous position as a professor, Albright was called by those who knew her on campus as "Professor Halfbright." Some of her recent actions are starting to make a lot of people wonder if there might have been a reason for that nickname. Lately, the State Department has allowed an alarming amount of United Nations equipment to be stored in the United States. UN military equipment has been spotted stockpiled in various locations around our country. Why? There's also the problem of all those UN Heritage Sites, biosphere reserves and now wilderness zones. Does anyone actually believe that a UN bureaucrat from some little third world country would better care for our national treasures than we would? Worst yet, the UN recently agreed to offer members of some environmental extremist groups diplomatic passports so they will be immune from the law when operating within the United States. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was given permission to wander around the U.S. as he pleases. He was in Hollywood recently, encouraging some left-leaning celebrities to lend a hand with the dissemination of UN propaganda. As starters, Annan wants that $1.2-billion in back "dues" he says we owe. The Clinton administration is, of course, applying pressure on Congress to pay at least part of that amount. As part of a world governance program, over 72 nations recently signed agreements to provide the UN a full sized military force. The administration approves of this action and has secretly contributed millions of taxpayer dollars to help get a UN army started. The State Department will not release exactly how much money we contributed, but it was in the hundreds of millions. Then, of course, there's the matter of gun control. For the first time in history, the United States has agreed to the UN plan of gun control. And, as is obvious at home, Clinton has continuously been doing his best to disarm the American people. Now comes the UN Court system. Next June, the United Nations is meeting in Rome to draft a treaty which would establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). Such a court could subject American citizens to the jurisdiction of foreign judges, who would have zero respect for our Constitution. As can be expected, the Clinton Administration supports the ICC. So does the U.S. Senate, which voted 55 to 45 to encourage the establishment of an ICC within the UN system. Even the American Bar Association has endorsed the concept of the ICC. But that's no real surprise, since the ABA characteristically does nothing to defend our Constitution anyway. The ICC would be a plaything for them. A new court system would allow lawyers to make up the rules as they go along. However, for the unsuspecting American citizen, such an international criminal court would be a disaster. One important difference is that there will be no right for the accused to confront witnesses, as stipulated in our Sixth Amendment. The UN court will adopt a provision known as Rule 75, which allows witnesses to remain anonymous, even to defendants and their lawyers. And, as in American administrative law courts, a defendant will be classed as guilty until proven innocent. The United States does not have a very good track record in these world courts, which makes it very difficult to understand how any person respecting our Rule of Law could agree to such wickedness. For example, we lost a series of key cases before the international agency governing commerce and tariffs. Really, these and dozens of other actions by the Clinton Administration point to only one thing: Clinton is systematically weakening the United States so it will be easier to control when he is secretary-general of the United Nations. Truly, to protect our American way of life, we must get the UN out of the United States and the United States out of the UN. UNENFORCED RIGHTS We learned a little more of how the law applies to the controlling elite this week. It seems that if someone is involved in a crime and explains it to their spouse, they may then claim 'marital privilege' when questioned about that crime and so will not need to answer questions about it for a grand jury. Thank Hillary for teaching us that one. Apparently she got away with it. Meanwhile, let's look at laws that may be a little more applicable to our lives. There is actually a federal law barring "conspiracy against rights" (18 USC 241). "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or "If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - "They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." So, if anyone conspires "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." We could easily read a lot into that, but let's just stick with the exact words of the Bill of Rights. In the First Amendment, we find that the free exercise of religion is suddenly being threatened. So too are our rights of free speech and assembly. And the Fourth Amendment has been totally trashed lately. The fact is that nine out of the first ten amendments have been pretty well "interpreted" to a point where they favor the expediency of government agents rather than the American people. The "Conspiracy against Rights" law, therefore, must not be one that is often enforced. So, let's try another. There is also a "deprivation of rights under color of law" law (18 USC 242), which applies better to government agencies: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . ." Here again, the law is violated regularly. Any compilation of specific information on citizens would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. So too would warrantless searches (inspections) by regulatory agencies. For instance, nearly everything the IRS does is a violation of the Constitution. The sad fact is, most recent laws, rules and regulations violate the Constitutional rights of the people in some way. Possibly though, we are reading the above laws wrong and the words do not mean exactly what they say. Perhaps there could be some hidden clause in the Rule of Law somewhere that states that laws like the two above apply only to the protected ones: those elected to office, their friends and the bureaucrats. It must be that. Else, the whole of government is negligent in the enforcement of its own law. -- 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: Subject: The Long Island Incident (fwd) Date: 04 May 1998 11:11:45 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -- Texas State Rifle Association Email --- May 2, 1998 Charlton Heston, NRA First Vice President, legendary actor, and civil rights activist, will hold a major news conference on Monday, May 4, at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific Time), to challenge the NBC television movie, "The Long Island Incident," and its executive producer, Barbra Streisand. News reports indicate that the production will deliberately misrepresent NRA, the Second Amendment, and elected officials who support that cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. Prior to the decision to hold this news conference, NRA had requested and been denied by NBC the opportunity to view "The Long Island Incident" in advance of its May 3 airing. Mr. Heston will address these issues directly in his remarks on May 4, and issue a very direct challenge to Ms. Streisand. A release announcing the press conference has been sent to members of both the national news media and the entertainment media. It now remains to be seen how the media will treat this event. Will it give ample coverage, so that NRA's objections will be heard, or will it censor the voice of law-abiding gun owners? - - - - - Boycott of "The Long Island 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 Long Island Incident" 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 sponsors 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) Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/ If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: Review of Long Island Incident (fwd) Date: 04 May 1998 11:09:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org Los Angeles Times Today's Stories May 2, 1998 TV Review Message Muddled in 'Long Island Incident' By DON HECKMAN, Special to The Times Incident" doesn't quite make it as a descriptive term for what happened Dec. 7, 1993, on a New York commuter train. "Horror" might more accurately describe the sudden burst of unprovoked violence, in which six people died and 19 others were wounded when a deranged Colin Ferguson opened up on unsuspecting passengers with a razor-bullet equipped, semi-automatic handgun. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The case received wide att= ention in the media, in part because of Ferguson's bizarre efforts to serve as his own defense attorney, in part because Carolyn McCarthy, a Long Island homemaker whose husband was killed and whose son was seriously wounded in the attack, emerged from the trial an outspoken advocate of gun control and an eventual candidate for Congress. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"The Lon= g Island Incident," airing Sunday on NBC, concentrates upon McCarthy's reaction to the devastating impact of her husband's death and the crippling of her son. Initially concerned primarily with son Kevin's remarkable recovery, she is eventually driven to take an aggressive public role against assault weapons. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Laurie Metcalf, in a ro= le far distant from her Emmy Award-winning performances as Jackie Harris in "Roseanne," finds multilayers of emotion and intelligence in her rendering of McCarthy. And MacKenzie Astin (son of actress Patty Duke and actor-director John Astin) balances Kevin's sentimental appeal with a leavening touch of humor. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But curiously, given its central importance to the story, the actual moment of bloody ferocity is never seen. Nor does Ferguson, portrayed with an impressive sub-current of rage by Tyrone Benskin, ever come fully into focus. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0This minimization--avoidance, even--of the act of violence undercuts the story's effectiveness. Clearly concerned primarily with describing McCarthy's transition from her private, domestic identity to forthright public figure, writer Maria Nation's otherwise well-crafted script fails to fully connect that transition with the violent epiphany that directs McCarthy into her new passage. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0It's worth mentioning that, f= or some viewers, "The Long Island Incident" may come across as a one-sided polemic in favor of gun control. But here, too, as with the failure to depict the horror of Ferguson's rampage, the picture undercuts its own goals by polarizing the problem. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Characters representing a N= ational Rifle Assn. lobbyist, a Southern-accented congressman and McCarthy's own representative, Dan Frisa, are portrayed as narrow-minded and self-serving--characterizations that tend to diminish the impact of McCarthy's efforts. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0And by reducing the anti-gun control lob= by to cardboard cutouts, by focusing upon McCarthy's brief legislative successes without illuminating the full extent of the gun control problem, the script dangerously minimizes the long-term persistence and power of the NRA and its legislative defenders. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0* "The Long = Island Incident" airs at 9 p.m. Sunday on NBC. The network has rated it TV-PG (may be unsuitable for young children). =20 Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one. =09Copyright Los Angeles Times --=20 =09=09=09=09Charles 'Chuck' Inston Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: ECHELON: European Union and FBI Launch Global Surveillance System (fwd) Date: 04 May 1998 11:12:28 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.freenix.fr/netizen/swreport.html? European Union and FBI launch global surveillance system A Statewatch report Statewatch, PO Box 1516, London N16 0EW tel: 00 44 181 802 1882 fax: 00 44 181 880 1727 e-mail: statewatch-off@geo2.poptel.org.uk http://www.poptel.org.uk/statewatch Reproduit avec l'autorisation des auteurs Brief Resume "The EU, in cooperation with the FBI of the USA, is launching a system of global surveillance of communications to combat "serious crime" and to protect "national security", but to do this they are creating a system which can monitor everyone and everything. The EU will be able to trawl the airwaves for "subversive" thoughts and "dissident" views and, with its partners, across the globe." "It seems extraordinary given the concern over the Police Bill in the UK and the "Clipper chip" in the USA that there has been no debate over the creation of a global telephone tapping system initiated by the EU and the USA and supported by Canada, Australia, Norway and Hong Kong." "the UK Parliament, like many others in the EU, has been by- passed in the most blatant way. To claim as the Home Secretary does that the "Memorandum of Understanding" is "not a signi=DEcant document" and to fail to send the main EU Council Resolution to parliament for scrutiny is quite extraordinary when the Police Bill - which extends police surveillance - is going through parliament." OVERVIEW EU-FBI: global tapping system The Council of the European Union and the FBI in Washington, USA have been cooperating for the past five years on a plan to introduce a global telecommunications tapping system. The system takes advantage of the liberalisation of telecommunications - where private companies are taking over from national telephone systems - and the replacement of land/sea based lines and microwave towers by satellite communications. Telephone lines are now partly land-based or under sea or via microwave land-based towers but the new generation of telecommunications will be totally satellite based. The EU-FBI initiative notes the demise of: 1. state-owned telephone companies 2. nationally-based telephone systems is concerned about: 3. the problems faced with intercepting "mobile" phones and encrypted communications and wants to ensure: 4. there is harmonisation of national laws on interception 5. to ensure that telecommunications provider business cooperate with the police and internal security 6. the equipment produced has standards which can be intercepted 7. as many countries as possible to sign up and thus create a de facto global system (through provisions of equipment etc to third countries) A related disclosure in a book by Nicky Hager shows that instead of "suspects" and "targets" the ECHELON system simply trawls the airwaves for "subversive thoughts" in written form and increasingly in verbal form. ECHELON is run under the 1948 UKUSA agreement by the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. STATEWATCH's FULL REPORT The Trevi decision The first reference to this initiative was at a Trevi Ministers meeting in December 1991 which decided that: "a study should be made of the effects of legal, technical and market developments within the telecommunications sector on the different interception possibilities and of what action should be taken to counter the problems that have become apparent" At the meeting of Trevi Ministers in Copenhagen in June 1993 they agreed the text of a "questionnaire on phone tapping" which was sent to each Member State in July 1993 and to the new members (Finland, Sweden and Austria) in September 1993 (see below). EU-FBI linkup At the first meeting of the new Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Brussels on 29-30 November 1993 they adopted the following Resolution on "the interception of telecommunications" which speaks for itself and reproduced here in full: "COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE INTERCEPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS The Council: 1. calls upon the expert group to compare the requirements of the Member States of the Union with those of the FBI; 2. agrees that the requirements of the Member States of the Union will be conveyed to the third countries which attended the FBI meeting in Quantico and were mentioned in the memorandum approved by the Ministers at their meeting in Copenhagen (Sweden, Norway, Finland (countries applying for accession to the European Communities), the USA and Canada) in order to avoid a discussion based solely on the requirements of the FBI; 3. approves for practical reasons the extension to Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand (which attended the FBI seminar) of the decision on co-operation with third countries which was taken at the Ministerial meeting in Copenhagen; 4. hereby decides that informal talks with the above-named countries may be envisaged: to that end the Presidency and the expert group might, for example, organize a meeting with those third countries to exchange information." Source: "Interception of communications", report to COREPER, ENFOPOL 40, 10090/93, Confidential, Brussels, 16.11.93. Main Resolution on the "lawful interception of communications" The draft Resolution on the "lawful interception of communications", an initiative by the Netherlands (which set out the "Requirements", see below) was discussed in the K4 Committee in March, April, November and December 1994. The JHA Council discussed the draft Resolution in March 1994 but it was only formally adopted by "written procedure" (by telexes to Member States dated 21.12.94, 9.1.95, and 18.1.95: source Council of the European Union; the last date is after the Resolution was agreed) on 17 January 1995. The decision was not published in any form for almost two years - on 4 November 1996 it =DEnally appeared in the Official Journal. The Resolution has three parts: First, the short Resolution which says: "the legally authorised interception of telecommunications is an important tool for the protection of national interest, in particular national security and the investigation of serious crime." Second, the "REQUIREMENTS" which place a whole series of obligations on: network providers, eg: satellite communications networks; and on service providers, who provide the equipment for national telecom centres, business, groups and individuals. And finally, a Glossary of de=DEnitions. The "Requirements" are based on the needs of "law enforcement agencies" (de=DEned as "a service authorised by law to carry out telecommunications interceptions") who "require access to the entire telecommunications transmitted.. by the interception subject" (defined as: "Person or persons identified in the lawful authorisation and whose incoming and outgoing communications are to be intercepted") who is the subject of an "interception order" defined as: "An order placed on a network operator/service provider for assisting a law enforcement agency with a lawfully authorised telecommunications interception." The "law enforcement agencies" are required to be provided with access not just to the content of a communication, in whatever, form, but also "associated data", "post-connection" signals (eg: conference calling or call transfer), all numbers called, all numbers called by - in both cases even if a connection is not made - plus "realtime, fulltime monitoring capability", the location of mobile subscribers, simultaneous and multiple interceptions "by more than one law enforcement agency", and "roaming" by mobile phone users "outside their designated home serving area". The network operators and service providers are expected to provide "one or several" permanent "interfaces from which the intercepted communications can be transmitted to the law enforcement monitoring facility." And, if they provide "encoding, compression or encryption" to the customer they must provide it en clair (decrypted) to the law enforcement agencies. Finally, they are obliged to ensure that: "neither the interception target nor any other authorised person is aware of any changes made to ful=DEl the interception order=8A [and] to protect information on which and how many interceptions are being or have been performed, and not to disclose information on how interceptions are carried out." Source: "Memorandum of Understanding concerning the lawful interception of telecommunications", ENFOPOL 112, 10037/95, Limite, Brussels, 25.11.95; this report contains the "Memorandum" with the Resolution adopted on 17 January 1965 attached. The Resolution was published in the Of=DEcial Journal on 4.11.96, ref: C 329 pages 1-6. Memorandum of Understanding on the Legal Interception of Telecommunications The "Memorandum of understanding with third countries" (later described as the "Memorandum of Understanding on the Legal Interception of Telecommunications") was discussed at the K4 Committee in November 1994. The signi=DEcance of the "Memorandum" is that it extends the agreement on= the surveillance of telecommunications to non-EU countries who are being invited to adopt it - and with it the "Requirements". The Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the 15 EU Member States on 23 November 1995 at the meeting of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers. The contact addresses for signatory countries and for further information, which con=DErms the EU-USA link, should be sent to: "a) Director Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attention: Information Resource Division, 10 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20535 b) General Secretary of the Council of the European Union, FAO The President, Rue de la Loi 175, B-1048 Brussels, Belgium." The number of signatories to the "Memorandum" is open-ended, any country can join providing the existing member states agree. It invites "participants" because "the possibilities for intercepting telecommunications are becoming increasingly threatened" and there is a need to introduce "international interception standards" and "norms for the telecommunications industry for carrying out interception orders" in order to "=DEght.. organised crime and for the protection of national security." The strategy appears to be to =DErst get the "Western world" (EU, US plus allies) to agree "norms" and "procedures" and then to sell these products to Third World countries - who even if they do not agree to "interception orders" will =DEnd their telecommunications monitored by ECHELON (see below) the minute it hit the airwaves. Source: "Memorandum of Understanding concerning the lawful interception of telecommunications", ENFOPOL 112, 10037/95, Limite, Brussels, 25.11.95. "=8ANot a significant document" the Home Secretary The Chair of the Select Committee on the European Communities in the House of Lords, Lord Tordoff, took up the "Memorandum" with the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, in an exchange of letters on the Committee~s access to documents for scrutiny. On the subject of the "Memorandum of Understanding on the Legal Interception of Telecommunications" Mr Howard told Lord Tordoff: "The Memorandum of Understanding is a set of practical guidelines to third countries on the lawful interception of telecommunications. It is not a significant document and does not, therefore, appear to meet the criteria for Parliamentary scrutiny of Title VI documents." (emphasis added) It is quite clear from this Briefing that the "Memorandum" is not an insigni=DEcant document concerning as it does a EU-US plan for global telecommunications surveillance. The "Memorandum" itself is just two pages. It is the full text of the "Resolution" attached to it which demonstrates its full meaning. However, not only did Mr Howard not think the "Memorandum" was "a significant document" he also apparently believes the attached Resolution also insigni=DEcant as he did not submit it to the House of Lords Committee for scrutiny prior to its adoption in January 1995 or thereafter. Source: Correspondence with Ministers, 9th Session 1995-96, HL 74, pages 26-29. Letter to international standards bodies In December 1995 COREPER agreed a letter to be sent out to "international standardisation bodies in the =DEeld of telecommunications" (IEC, ISO and ITU). The letter said: "Modern telecommunications systems present the risk of not permitting the lawful interception of telecommunications if they have not been adapted, at the standardisation and design stage, to allow such interception." These bodies are "invited" to take account of the requirements of the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 and told that Member States would be applying "these requirements to network operators and providers of services". The December 1995 letter to international standards bodies and the publication of the main Resolution in November 1996 in the Of=DEcial Journal announced to manufacturers of equipment and service providers that they will be expected to meet the "Requirements" allowing surveillance for any new contracts within the EU and via the "Memorandum" that these standards would also apply to any countries signing up to it - for example, the USA. Source: "Draft letter to be sent to the international standardisation bodies concerning the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of communications", Council General Secretariat to COREPER/COUNCIL, ENFOPOL 166, 12798/95, Limite, 14.12.95. Letter to non EU countries At it meeting on 28-29 November 1996 the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers agreed a "draft letter" prepared by the K4 Committee to "non EU participants in the informal international Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar". "The letter=8A informs you of the wider international support for the "Requirements" annexed to the Council Resolution. The Council considers that the lawful monitoring of telecommunications systems is an important tool in the prevention and detection of serious crimes and in safeguarding national security. Mindful of new technological developments in the =DEeld of telecommunications, the Council adopted the Resolution of 17 January, 1996 laying down technical Requirements, for the lawful interception of telecommunications. The Member States of the European Union have been called upon to apply those Requirements to telecommunications operators and service providers=8A The "Requirements" have been discussed by interception experts from EU Member States with colleagues from other countries which are equally concerned to ensure that adequate technical provision is made for legally authorized interception in modern telecommunications technologies. Arising from those discussions which have taken place during a seminar, the Council of the European Union has received expressions of support for the Requirements from Australia, Canada, Norway and the United States of America. In particular, the relevant authorities In those countries have undertaken to (i) have the Requirements taken into account in their appropriate national policies and (ii) use the Requirements as a basis for discussions with the telecommunications industry, standards bodies and telecommunications operators=8A You are invited to take note of this letter for the purpose of your further discussions with the telecommunications industry standards bodies and telecommunications operators. The President, for the Council of the European Union." Source: "Draft letter to non EU participants in the informal international Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar regarding the Council Resolution", ENFOPOL 180, 11282/96, Limite 6.11.96. Behind the scenes Behind the formal decisions and letters the various Working Parties under the K4 Committee were at work on the details. In January 1995 the Police Cooperation Working Group, which comes under the K4 Committee, considered a report by the UK delegation on the problems presented by the next generation of satellite- based telecommunications systems which should be able to: " ~"tag" each individual subscriber in view of a possibly necessary surveillance activity." The report said that the new mobile individual communications working through satellites were already underway and unlike the current earth-bound systems based on GSM-technology would "in many cases operate from outside the national territory". The rationale for the plan was that these new systems: "will provide unique possibilities for organised crime and will lead to new threats to national security". The report said all the new systems have to have the capability to place all individuals under surveillance - the product of "tagging" individual phone lines could therefore easily be extended to political activists, "suspected" illegal migrants and others. The fact that the new systems were being developed by large private international corporations, not national state-run systems, created "unusual problems for the legally permitted surveillance of telecommunications". The =DErst problem to surface, according to the report, was that: "initial contacts with various consortia=8A has met with the most diverse reactions, ranging from great willingness to cooperate on the one hand, to an almost total refusal even to discuss the question." It goes on to say: "it is very urgent for governments and/or legislative institutions to make the new consortia aware of their duties. The government will also have to create new regulations for international cooperation so that the necessary surveillance will be able to operate." Another "problem" for surveillance under the new systems is that satellites will communicate with earth-bound stations which will function as distribution points for a number of adjoining countries - there will not be a distribution point in every country. While the existing "methods of legally permitted surveillance of immobile and mobile telecommunications have hitherto depended on national infrastructures". The: "providers of these new systems do not come under the legal guidelines used hitherto for a legal surveillance of telecommunications." The report says it would be difficult to monitor the "upward and downward connections to the distribution point" so the "tag" would start the surveillance at "the =DErst earthbound distribution point". Due to the number of different countries that might be involved in making a connection it has been agreed that the following "relevant data" should be provided: "the number of the subscriber calling, the number of the subscriber being called, the numbers of all subscribers called thereafter". The report uses the example of a subscriber who is a national of country A, with a telephone subscription in country B (supplying the relevant data for the "tag"), who occasionally uses the system in country C which uses the distribution point in country D (which conducts the surveillance) and who is in contact with a person in country E concerning a suspected serious crime in country F. The report with a series of recommendations including amendments to national laws to "ensure that surveillance will be possible within the new systems" and that "all those who are involved in planning the new systems" should be made aware of "the demands of legally permitted surveillance". A later report from the same Working Party, in June 1995, concludes: "These new telecommunications systems have much in common with existing mobile phone systems=8A [and] will very quickly develop into a global problem, which looks like it can only be controlled by global cooperation of a hitherto unknown degree." Sources: "Legally permitted surveillance of telecommunications systems provided from a point outside the national territory", report from the UK delegation to the Working Group on Police Cooperation, ENFOPOL 1, 4118/95, Restricted, 9.1.95; Report from the Presidency to the Working Group on Police Cooperation, ENFOPOL 1, 4118/2/95 REV 2, Limite, 2.6.95. Questionnaire on "national law regarding phone tapping In November 1995 while the EU Ministers were signing the "Memorandum of Understanding" for non-EU countries a Working Party under the K4 Committee was considering a report from the Spanish delegation on national laws within the EU on phone tapping surveillance. The 1995 report opens with the cynical observation: "As it was foreseeable, all states which have answered the questionnaire guarantee the con=DEdentiality of private communications either by their constitution or their Basic Law, or both, in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights." However, it goes on to observe, and assume, "under certain conditions the interception of telecommunications" is allowed. The report says the country surveys showed - and this is of crucial importance regarding surveillance by ECHELON (see below) that: "At the moment there does not seem to be a legal problem for interception that depends on the kind of device used for the transmission of voice, text, data or images" This is a reference to forms of "written" communications or "images" sent by e-mail, fax, and telex. It summarises the legal positions as: the following countries "can simply" make changes in the penal procedure: Germany, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal, while Belgium, France, the UK, Ireland, Greece, Norway and Sweden require new legislation, with a combination of both in Italy. Discussions had taken place, the report says, on the "great advantages" the police have if: "they can keep people under surveillance on the grounds of suspicion of criminal activity". Some countries require objective evidence of an offence before surveillance can start but in Austria a request for a phone tap "leads automatically to an investigation being opened". Another problem addressed was the right of individual's to be informed about phone tapping (Article 6.3 in relation to Article 8 of the ECHR): "Obviously such information prejudices the result of the police investigation. Therefore, each country has to arrange for a procedure to legally delay noti=DEcation." The report recommends the Danish system where a lawyer is appointed by the Justice Ministry who represents the interests of the person to be placed under surveillance at a private hearing but is not allowed to tell the person concerned. The survey found that the maximum duration of authorisation varied from 2 weeks to 4 months. The report concludes that phone tapping "is justified by a serious offence" where "a punishment of imprisonment of one year or more" is available to fight "organised crime". Yet again the justi=DEcation for combating "organised crime" is so widely drawn - sentences of just one year or more - that the purpose of surveillance has to be fundamentally questioned. Source: "Report on the national laws regarding the questionnaires on phone tapping", Report from the Spanish Presidency to the Working Group on Police Cooperation, ENFOPOL 15, 4354/2/95 REV 2, Restricted, 13.11.95. Who is going to pay for it? One issue on which the reports from the K4 Committee are silent is who is to pay the costs for the special facilities needed under the "Requirements" of law enforcement agencies - network and service providers or the governments? However, a report produced by the German government, says that the costs are going to be astronomical. It estimates that to set up surveillance of mobile phones alone will cost 4 billion D- Marks. Source: draft report, dated 5 May 1995, from the German government on the "problems and solutions regarding the surveillance of telecommunications". The "ECHELON" connection "ECHELON" is a world-wide surveillance system designed and coordinated by the US NSA (National Security Agency) that intercepts e-mail, fax, telex and international telephone communications carried via satellites and has been operating since the early 1980s - it is part of the post Cold War developments based on the UKUSA agreement signed between the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in 1948. The five agencies involved are: the US National Security Agency (NSA), the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in New Zealand, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in the UK, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) in Canada and the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) in Australia. The system has been exposed by Nicky Hager in his 1996 book, Secret Power: New Zealand's role in the International Spy Network. He interviewed more than 50 people who work or have worked in intelligence who are concerned at the uses of ECHELON. "The ECHELON system is not designed to eavesdrop on a particular individual's e-mail or fax link. Rather, the system works by indiscriminately intercepting very large quantities of communications and using computers to identify and extract messages from the mass of unwanted ones." There are three components to ECHELON: 1) The monitoring of Intelsats, international telecommunications satellites used by phone companies in most countries. A key ECHELON station is at Morwenstow in Cornwall monitoring Europe, the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. 2) ECHELON interception of non-Intelsat regional communication satellites. Key monitoring stations are Menwith Hill in Yorkshire and Bad Aibling in Germany. 3) The =DEnal element of the ECHELON system is the surveillance of= land-based or under-sea systems which use cables or microwave tower networks. At present it is thought ECHELON's effort is primarily directed at the "written form" (e-mails, faxes, and telexes) but new satellite telephones system which take over from old land-based ones will be as vulnerable as the "written word". Each of the five centres supply "Dictionaries" to the other four of keywords, phrases, people and places to "tag" and the tagged intercept is forwarded straight to the requesting country. It is the interface of the ECHELON system and its potential development on phone calls combined with the standardisation of "tappable" telecommunications centres and equipment being sponsored by the EU and the USA which presents a truly global threat over which there are no legal or democratic controls. Source: "Exposing the global surveillance system", Nicky Hager. CovertAction Quarterly, Winter 1996-97, pages 11-17. CHRONOLOGY December 1991 A meeting of the Trevi Ministers decide a study should be carried out on the new telecommunications systems and "the different interception possibilities". 29-30 November 1993 The First meeting of the new, post-Maastricht, Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers meeting in Brussels adopt a Resolution calling on experts to compare the needs of the EU "with those of the FBI". March, April, November and December 1994 The K4 Committee discusses the draft Resolution on the lawful interception of telecommunications and the "Requirements" to be placed on network and service providers. March 1994 The Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers discuss the draft Resolution. November 1994 The K4 Committee discusses the draft "Memorandum of Understanding with third countries". 9 January 1995 The Working Group on Police Cooperation, under the K4 Committee, considers a report on the need to "tag" all communications. 17 January 1995 The Resolution is adopted by "written procedure". It is not published in any form until 4 November 1996 when it appears in the Of=DEcial Journal. 13 November 1995 The Working Group on Police Cooperation consider a report on the situation in each EU state on telephone tapping. 23 November 1995 The Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers agree the "Memorandum of Understanding". It is not published in any form. December 1995 COREPER agree the text of a letter to be sent to international standards bodies attaching the Resolution. 7 May 1996 Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, tells the Chair of the Select Committee on the European Communities in the House of Lords that the "Memorandum of Understanding on the legal interception of communications" is "not a signi=DEcant document". 28 November 1996 The Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers agree the text of a letter to be sent out to other potential "participants" (countries) in the "Memorandum of Understanding". Glossary Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers Set up under Title VI, Article K, of the Maastricht Treaty. First meet on 29 November 1993 when it took over from the Trevi Group and the Ad Hoc Group on Immigration. K4 Committee Also set up under the Maastricht Treaty to coordinate the work on the "third pillar" - policing, immigration and asylum, and legal cooperation. Is comprised of senior of=DEcials from Interior Ministries and prepares report to go to the Council. Under the K4 Committee there are three Steering Groups covering policing and customs, immigration and asylum, and legal cooperation (civil and criminal) to which a series of Working Groups report. COREPER The Committee of Permanent Representatives from each EU state based in Brussels. Copyright: Statewatch, February 1998. Material in this report may be used provided the source is acknowledged. . ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=3DFA@coil.com ************************************************************************** ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: RE: Review of Long Island Incident (fwd) Date: 04 May 1998 13:02:03 -0700 (PDT) It would be interesting to remake a movie about this "incident" from the perspective of opposing black racism instead of opposing guns. At 11:09 AM 5/4/98 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 00:47:33 -0600 >From: Charles 'Chuck' Inston >Reply-To: act@efn.org >To: Blind-copy list >Subject: RE: Review of Long Island Incident > >Los Angeles Times >Today's Stories > >May 2, 1998 > > TV Review >Message Muddled in 'Long Island Incident' >By DON HECKMAN, Special to The Times > > Incident" doesn't quite make it as a descriptive term for what happened >Dec. 7, 1993, on a New York commuter train. "Horror" might more >accurately describe the sudden burst of unprovoked violence, in which >six people died and 19 others were wounded when a deranged Colin >Ferguson opened up on unsuspecting passengers with a razor-bullet >equipped, semi-automatic handgun. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The case received wide= attention >in the media, in part because of Ferguson's bizarre efforts to serve as >his own defense attorney, in part because Carolyn McCarthy, a Long >Island homemaker whose husband was killed and whose son was seriously >wounded in the attack, emerged from the trial an outspoken advocate of >gun control and an eventual candidate for Congress. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"The= Long >Island Incident," airing Sunday on NBC, concentrates upon McCarthy's >reaction to the devastating impact of her husband's death and the >crippling of her son. Initially concerned primarily with son Kevin's >remarkable recovery, she is eventually driven to take an aggressive >public role against assault weapons. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Laurie Metcalf, in a= role far >distant from her Emmy Award-winning performances as Jackie Harris in >"Roseanne," finds multilayers of emotion and intelligence in her >rendering of McCarthy. And MacKenzie Astin (son of actress Patty Duke >and actor-director John Astin) balances Kevin's sentimental appeal with >a leavening touch of humor. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But curiously, given its central >importance to the story, the actual moment of bloody ferocity is never >seen. Nor does Ferguson, portrayed with an impressive sub-current of >rage by Tyrone Benskin, ever come fully into focus. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0This >minimization--avoidance, even--of the act of violence undercuts the >story's effectiveness. Clearly concerned primarily with describing >McCarthy's transition from her private, domestic identity to forthright >public figure, writer Maria Nation's otherwise well-crafted script fails >to fully connect that transition with the violent epiphany that directs >McCarthy into her new passage. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0It's worth mentioning that,= for some >viewers, "The Long Island Incident" may come across as a one-sided >polemic in favor of gun control. But here, too, as with the failure to >depict the horror of Ferguson's rampage, the picture undercuts its own >goals by polarizing the problem. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Characters representing a= National >Rifle Assn. lobbyist, a Southern-accented congressman and McCarthy's own >representative, Dan Frisa, are portrayed as narrow-minded and >self-serving--characterizations that tend to diminish the impact of >McCarthy's efforts. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0And by reducing the anti-gun control= lobby to >cardboard cutouts, by focusing upon McCarthy's brief legislative >successes without illuminating the full extent of the gun control >problem, the script dangerously minimizes the long-term persistence and >power of the NRA and its legislative defenders. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0* "The Long= Island >Incident" airs at 9 p.m. Sunday on NBC. The network has rated it TV-PG >(may be unsuitable for young children). =20 > >Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You >will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one. > Copyright Los Angeles Times >--=20 > Charles 'Chuck' Inston > > Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in > compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, > "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" > > >- > > S. "Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." -- Peter W. Huber - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: THE MOB PRESIDENT Date: 04 May 1998 16:21:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.federal.com/may04-98/Mob THE MOB PRESIDENT The Mob Helped Clinton get Started In Politics. It is Now Helping Him Escape the Law When young Bill Clinton in 1974 made his first run for political office, a crucial $10,000 loan was arranged for him by his uncle, Raymond Clinton. Uncle Raymond has been tied by Clinton biographer Roger Morris to the Hot Springs Mafia. But it was not until 1984, when Clinton was elected for a second term as Governor of Arkansas, that Mob money really started pouring in. "That was the election when the Mob really came into Arkansas politics, the dog-track and racetrack boys, the payoff people who saw a good thing," a former U.S. Attorney told Roger Morris. "It wasn't just Bill Clinton and it went beyond our old Dixie Mafia, which was penny-ante by comparison. This was eastern and and West Coast crime money that noticed the possibilities just like the legitimate corporations did." Among the "legitimate corporations" that noticed the possibilities with the rapidly ascending governor thirsting for power and money were front corporations for the intelligence services of the People's Republic of China. The Lippo empire came to Arkansas that year. By then, Bill Clinton's ties to organized crime had become well- known. His half-brother Roger Clinton was convicted of cocaine distribution in association with Mob figure and Clinton money man Dan Lasater. In the years that followed, Arkansas became a major cocaine trans-shipment point for the Mafia, crossing paths with the famous CIA Contra resupply operation at Mena. Bill Clinton had found a most successful formula in U.S. politics: financial backing from a coalition of organized crime and hostile foreign governments. A MERGER OF THE DIXIE, CHICAGO AND NEW YORK CRIME FAMILIES So successful was this formula, that in 1992 Bill Clinton used it to reach the highest office, the office of the U.S. Presidency. In return for large campaign donations, the crime families would be represented in the Clinton administration. The New York Mob paid $56 million [1] and won the slot of Deputy Chief of Staff for its lawyer Harold Ickes. The Dixie Mafia paid an undisclosed amount and obtained slots for Patsy Thomasson and Buddy Young. The Chicago political machine sent Rahm Emanuel and David Wilhelm. Harold Ickes proved his value to the Mob when he held his hand over Mob puppets Arthur Coia and Ron Carey who were under separate RICO investigations by the Justice Department. Patsy Thomasson, in charge of White House drug testing policy, saw to it that criminal figures on the White House staff would not be bothered about past and current drug use. The People's Republic of China, in return for at least a $3 million loan through Worthen Bank, won a slot for its spy John Huang at the Commerce Department. Later followed access to advanced U.S. military technology, access to the Long Beach Naval Base, MFN trade status, and more campaign contributions. Peripheral Mob figures Nathan Landow, Richard Ben-Veniste, and their associates Terry Lenzner and Paul Begala became part of the secret police that would keep Clinton in office despite multiple revelations of criminal offenses. Ironically, the only member of the Clinton enforcement team who has threatened the use of Mafia methods in public is James Carville. He said on television that Kenneth Starr was just one mistake away from not having any kneecaps. "Kneecapping" is a Mafia specialty. Yet the only link between Carville and the Mafia that we have been able to find so far is his partnership with Paul Begala, who admitted in a recent deposition for the Filegate trial that he was in close and frequent contact with his friend Richard Ben-Veniste, a Mob lawyer and friend of Mobster Alvin Malnik [2]. Richard Ben- Veniste has defended several drug traffickers and money launderers for the Mafia and for the DNC. Ben-Veniste also defended Bill Clinton on the Senate Whitewater panel in 1995. It goes without saying that a Racketeering-Influenced Corrupt Organization such as the Clinton administration cannot stay in office long without a very efficient "enforcement" component to its secret police. The methods employed by this "enforcement" team include murder. The 1993 assassination of Clinton private investigator Jerry Parks was carried out by people in Hot Springs associated with Buddy Young [3]. Of all the mysterious deaths and suicides surrounding the Clinton Secret Police, this is the only one that has been solved. That does not mean that it has been prosecuted, though, for corruption of the judicial system is another necessary component of survival. White House Director of Administration, Patsy Thomasson of the Dixie Mafia, has been implicated in several attempts on the life of Dennis Patrick, a former money launderer for the Dixie Mafia who wanted out [3]. CORRUPTING THE PRESS Survival of the Clinton administration has also been contingent upon successful corruption of the press. The most prominent Clinton operator at this time is Murray Waas, gaining fame in the mainstream media for finding a psychic in Arkansas whose son had seen money given to Whitewater witness David Hale. Murray Waas has actually been doing opposition research for the Clinton administration for several years. His journalistic "scoops" (or are they merely ventilations of White House FBI files?) include research into the background of Kenneth Starr and into the background of Clinton critics. In this research, his Mafia-style methods have become apparent. Waas threatened to have reporter Michael Lewis killed after Lewis wrote a New Republic story looking into murder and drugs in Arkansas--a story that was unflattering of Waas [4]. Who does Waas know who would be able to enforce such a threat? THE MISSING PIECE If China made illegal donations to the Clinton campaign in return for mercantile and military strategic advantages, then what illegal donations have been made by Russia? The favors Clinton has made towards China pale in comparison to the favors he has made towards Russia. Billions of dollars in economic support and the maintenance of a strategic advantage in favor of Russia through the obstruction and delay of modernization of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and the development and deployment of a U.S. national missile defense. Lest gestures as these be interpreted as prudent engagement of a fledgling democracy, one should consider that it has rarely been the democratic forces in Russia, or the Russian people, that have been the beneficiaries of Clinton administration support: (1) Clinton's point man on Russia policy is the former KGB's point man on propaganda in the U.S. His name is Strobe Talbott, a former editor at Time magazine who built his career on access to KGB officials and their Soviet propaganda [5]. (2) The Clinton administration has worked hand-in-hand with Russian Mobsters to illegally extradite whistleblowers who have revealed massive KGB-Mafia corruption in Russia [6]. (3) The FBI, through its new offices in Moscow, has become an adjunct of the corrupt KGB-Mafia bureaucracy that rules Russian society today. FBI Director Freeh has reversed himself in stating that the Russian Mafia does not pose a threat to U.S. domestic or national security [7]. Only a month earlier, Freeh had warned that 30 Russian Mafia syndicates were conducting the most sophisticated criminal operations ever seen in America based on their access to expertise in computer technology, encryption techniques and money laundering [8]. (4) Monetary aid to Russia has been diverted towards the modernization of its strategic nuclear arsenal, including a new generation of nuclear attack submarines. Other funds have been diverted to the Russian Mob [5]. The engineer of these scams is Strobe Talbott. Where are the records of illegal campaign donations invested by the Russian KGB-Mafia complex in the Clinton administration to maintain this profitable state of affairs? Apart from the revelation of a $90,000 donation to the DNC on behalf of suspected nuclear arms dealer Grigory Loutchansky [9], the record of this cash pipeline must be hidden inside the DNC's closely guarded campaign finance records. That is a scandal yet to surface. THE CLINTON LEGACY The legacy of the Clinton Presidency is the transformation of the United States into a narco republic with parts of the judicial system as corrupt as that of Colombia. Much worse than that, Bill Clinton has helped build a state-of-the-art offensive nuclear strike capability in the most dangerous nations on earth: China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran. And the nuclear weapons of China and perhaps Russia are targeted at the U.S. Simultaneously with this build-up, Clinton has dismantled, defunded, and starved the U.S. military so that today we have a "hollow army." The actions of President Clinton will dramatically affect the security of the United States for generations to come. He has sold out his own country in order to win and maintain the Presidency. Notes: [1] F.C. "Duke" Zeller in the Washington Times, October 28, 1996 [2] The Miami Herald [3] "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [4] "The Seducer," by Michael Lewis, The New Republic Nov. 18, 1996 [5] "Strobe Talbott: Russia's Man in Washington," by Kenneth R. Timmerman, The American Spectator, April 1998. [6] "Clinton Administration Aids KGB in Cover-up of Communist Party Loot," Washington Weekly, Aug. 25, 1997. [7] "Freeh Says Russian Mafia Poses no Threat," Washington Weekly, Nov. 24, 1997 [8] "FBI's man in Moscow quits after spying row," London Telegraph, Nov. 27, 1997. [9] "Suspected N-dealer attended Clinton fund-raiser," by Christopher Ruddy, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Oct. 30, 1996. Published in the May 4, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact Warm Regards, Nancy - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Transcript, partial, "The Long Island Incident" (fwd) Date: 04 May 1998 16:55:27 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Cc: No Gun Bans Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Dan Day" Well, I just spent a bunch of time transcribing the relevant portions of my tape of NBC's "The Long Island Incident". Now I'm up *way* past my bedtime; I hope y'all appreciate it. Here are the choicest parts, transcribed and double-checked as accurately as I could manage, along with how many hours:minutes it was into the program. (I think I've worn off my VCR's "pause" and "rewind" buttons.) The "1:23" conversation is a classic. ==================== 0:01 [In a New York gun store. Store is respectable, gun dealer is nice-looking older man.] Colin Ferguson: "I like this one - I'm in a hurry..." NY gun dealer: "Well show me your license and you can be on your way Ferguson: "License?" Gun dealer: "Oh, boy..." [starts putting away guns] Ferguson: "Hey, what are you doing? I want to buy one!" Gun dealer: "Yeah? Then find yourself another state, because in New York, no license, no gun, got it?" [Ferguson has to be forcibly ejected from the store.] ==================== 0:03 [Ferguson in California motel lobby] Motel clerk: "How long will you be staying in LA, sir?" Ferguson: "Fifteen day waiting period..." [...] "Fifteen days. And I need the address of my 'new residence'." ==================== 0:06 [California gun store, "Fifteen days later". Store has Santa Claus statue holding a gun, dealer looks greasy and sleazy.] Gun dealer: "Yeah, yeah, the one you've got in your hand there? That's one of LA's best sellers. Or we've got the Glock 19 here. Best of the line, you know, if you want to do some serious damage." Ferguson: "No, this is the one I came here for." Gun dealer: "Excellent -- she's a sweetheart. So I guess you gonna want some ammo for that, right? Cause if you pick her up, you don't want to be just waving her around." Ferguson: "What, do I look stupid to you?" [Ferguson gets wild-eyed, gun dealer looks scared for a moment.] Gun dealer: "Trust me, a guy holding a Ruger 9mm semi-automatic never looks stupid. Hey, come here. You ever hear of something called the Black Talon? This ammo in here, this'll mess up your day..." ==================== 0:27 ["Tim" comes to Carolyn McCarthy's house, tries to convince her to push for new gun laws.] Tim: "...deranged animals walking around with a semi-automatic weapon that fires *15* bullets; he bought the thing legal, the cops aren't even allowed to carry those guns." ==================== 0:28 [McCarthy is in a doctor's X-Ray room.] Doctor: "You probably don't want to look at that -- it's the remains of a hollow-point bullet." McCarthy: "This is what killed my husband?" Doctor: "Same kind. See? The hollow tip explodes on impact, like shrapnel. The bullet that killed your husband also explodes with little claws that are sharp as razors. It's how they got their name, Black Talons." McCarthy: "What kind of animal is this meant to hunt?" Doctor: "They're not made for animals, they're made for killing people." McCarthy: "Colin Ferguson bought these legally, how can that be? It's crazy." Doctor: "We live in a crazy time." ==================== 0:42 [McCarthy and Tim are lobbying a Congressman.] Tim: "I'll tell you why we need your support on this Crime Bill congressman; there are over 100 gun related deaths in this country every single day, and the Crime Bill is the one line of defense that we've got. We don't need semi-automatic weapons on the street and your constituents will back you up on this. It's common knowledge that 70% of Americans favor the ban." Congressman: [waffles a bit, then] "I have to say that I have some problems with the bill -- it limits the size of a magazine's clip [sic] from 15 bullets to 10 [sic]; I mean 5 bullets is not the issue." Tim: "Colin ferguson's last five bullets killed three people -- it was an issue for them, sir." ==================== 0:47 [TV flipping through McCarthy interview soundbites] McCarthy: "The very reason why guns should not be available..." [click] "What I really want to know is why Colin Ferguson was allowed to buy the gun..." [click] ==================== 0:48 [TV footage of Clinton] Clinton: "Well first of all, it's a terrible human tragedy, and my sympathies go out to all the families involved.... I would say that we have to note .... the gun that was used contained apparently two fifteen round clips that were expended while this man in a manic state was walking down the subway aisles, and one of the reasons we oughta pass the Crime Bill is that Senator Feinstein's amendment to limit assault weapons would make those 15-round clips illegal." ==================== 0:50 [McCarthy on TV] McCarthy: "In a blink your whole normal life can be turned inside out, and the thing is that there's such a proliferation of guns on the street now that it could happen to anyone at any time. It has got to stop; we have got to let our politicians know that we care about this -- the safety of people has got to be more important to politicians than getting money from the National Rifle Association." ==================== 0:51 [McCarthy is lobbying a woman congressman] McCarthy: "Last year people armed with handguns committed more than a million violent crimes -- my husband and son were two of these victims. [...] As a woman I'm sure that you know that even a man with a restraining order against him can still legally go out and buy a gun so Clinton's Crime Bill would help so... ==================== 0:52 [McCarthy runs into a sleazy, smirking guy in the Capitol building] Bill Leffert: "I was wondering how it feels to become a celebrity at the expense of your husband's life." McCarthy [shocked]: "I beg your pardon?" Leffert: "You're quite the actress... [McCarthy storms off] No comment? [smirks]" McCarthy [stomps back]: "This crime bill would outlaw 19 types of semiautomatic weapons; it's only a fraction of the guns that are out there, but if this could keep one family from going through what my family's gone through, if I could get one Congressman to change his vote and get this passed, then one good thing has come out of this incident. I don't know who you are or what you want, but if you think that I would be rather here [sic] doing this, or being at home waiting for my husband to get back from work..." Leffert: "I'll tell you who I am, I'm Bill Leffert, I'm here to keep sentimentalism out of the political debate. My job is to protect the Second Amendment from people like you." McCarthy: "People like me?" Leffert: "The trouble with people like you..." McCarthy: "These are all people like me. These are all people, with husbands and wives and children, and they all have a right to take a walk, or to get on a bus, or ride a commuter train home from work... without the fear that they will be wiped out by an assault weapon with exploding bullets. That's all that people like me want. [Shouting now] And one more thing Mr. Leffert, this has NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment and you know that as well as I do..." ==================== 0:59 [McCarthy being interviewed on TV] Reporter: "How did it feel to be invited to the White House?" McCarthy: "Amazing -- it was great to see him sign the bill. It was great to know that there are 19 types of semi-automatic guns outlawed and off our streets." ==================== 1:09 [McCarthy's son, who was wounded on the LIRR, testifies at Ferguson's trial] Son: "...I did not have the luxury of a trial or an appeal, I was convicted and sentenced by a depraved madman with an assault gun." ==================== 1:15 [McCarthy listens to her car radio] Radio report: "In a letter addressed to the National Rifle Association, Dole promised an end to the type of scare tactics that led to the passage of the [crime] bill in the first place." Tim: "It's payback time -- that's what it's about. New Congress just got elected, and you know who financed a lot of those campaigns, the NRA." McCarthy: "Assault weapons! Tim, they want to put assault weapons back on the street, that's crazy!" Tim: "Nah, that's politics. The National Rifle Association ain't gonna let them forget it." ==================== 1:21 [McCarthy and friends try to lobby their own congressman] "Twenty five people get shot up in his own district and he still won't vote to take assault weapons off the streets!" McCarthy: "He's more responsive to the NRA than he is to the people who elected him." Tim: "Do you have any idea how much the NRA lays out for political contributions?" McCarthy: "I don't know how he sleeps at night, I really don't" Tim: "Politicians know who butters their bread." ==================== 1:23 [McCarthy and anti-gun lobbyists chat over lunch] Lobbyist #1: "As a lobbyist, what particularly galls me is how facts are twisted by the NRA leadership. Like the right to bear arms..." Lobbyist #2: [snorts] "The right to bear arms... Did you know the head of the Supreme Court, former Chief Justice Burger, called the NRA's misrepresentation of the second amendment one of the greatest pieces of fraud he had ever seen?" McCarthy: "He called it fraud?" Lobbyist #2: "Fraud. No matter what the NRA wants you to believe, the Second Amendment has never been about the rights of an individual to bear arms. It's about the right to arm a militia." Lobbyist #1: "A well regulated militia." Natalie: "Yeah, and the NRA figures that most people won't read the actual Bill of Rights." Tim: "Right about that." Lobbyist #2: "And that's where we come in." Lobbyist #1: "We lobby to keep the political dialog honest." ==================== 1:24 [McCarthy spots her elusive Congressman at nearby table] McCarthy: I don't mean to tell you how to do your job, but I have spoken to a lot of our friends on the Island and they don't want this repeal -- we want guns off our streets, especially after what just happened in our own back yard." Congressman: [waffles, then after McCarthy leaves, says to lunch companion:] She is just a self-serving [mumble] liberal, who people listen to because they have sympathy for her. Don't sweat it, finish your steak, so we can have some of that sensational key lime pie..." ==================== 1:25 [McCarthy and friends are watching from the observation balcony as a Congressman gives a speech on the floor of the House] Politician: "Maybe this is just a personal anecdote, but my dear old Momma was widowed last year, and where my people come from, well it's rural, it can be as desolate as all get out. Now all I gotta do is think of her safety, and I know where my vote is gonna be placed on the repeal of this heinous gun control legislation -- she's 89 years old, and it's her right to protect herself." McCarthy [standing up and screaming]: "You just don't get it -- this is about gun violence! Unless your 89 year old mother is hanging an Uzi over her door, this bill isn't going to limit her rights! You don't get it! This is about banning assault weapons!" ==================== 1:26 [The House passes the bill repealing the "assault weapon ban"] Reporter #1: "In what critics have called a furtive, middle of the night vote, the new Republican-led House of Representatives has voted today to repeal a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, which would allow 19 brands of assault weapons to once again..." Reporter #2: "With only one day's notice, and virtually no public hearings, house Republicans have leveled a striking blow to Clinton's recently passed crime bill, which had banned 19 brands of assault weapons..." Reporter #3 [smug and smirking]: "It was a stunning, stunning victory for the National Rifle Association, and clearly shows where the hearts and the minds of the American public stands on this issue of gun control.. The american people want no political intervention of any kind into the right to arm themselves in any way they see fit." McCarthy: "I'm furious. I have been working for over two years on the issue of gun violence, and I know [mumble] tough, saner laws. These politicians are not listening to their own people." ==================== 1:35 [McCarthy is talking to her son at home, resisting the idea of running for Congress] McCarthy: "I don't know anything about politics." Son: "Yeah, well, you didn't know anything about guns before, but now you're an expert." ==================== 1:43 [The McCarthy political "War Room", complete with HCI's infamous "God Bless America", and a "YES OR NO" "assault weapon" poster with a big stick-on saying "Guns don't die, people do!"] Political advisor: "'Bullet Magazine' is calling you a professional widow -- politics are ugly." ==================== 1:55 [Acceptance speech] McCarthy: "Tonight, you have helped me to start to make a difference in our world and we have already come a long way. Gun violence takes the lives of 105 american men, women and children every day. Every day. Tonight, you have sent a message that enough is enough. I promise you that that message will be heard in Washington." (applause). ==================== 1:58 [Dedication at end of movie] "Dedicated to the memory of all the men, women and children killed by gunfire in the United States." ==================== -- 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: Re: WalMart Donates to anti-gun cause (fwd) Date: 05 May 1998 10:27:24 PST On May 05, John Wilson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Steve Jones wrote: > ALERT: Wal-Mart Supports Anti-Gun Group in Missouri > > This problem is occurring in Missouri, but the issue is national. > Please > help. > > Missourians against Handgun Violence (MAHV) is the most prominent > anti-gun > organization in Missouri, and lobbies against the interests of lawful > gun > owners at every turn. The Spring issue of their newsletter is on the > > street, and contained an item that gun owners may find shocking. I > have > now verified that Wal-Mart intends to financially support this > organization. > > On "Mitzvah Day" this Sunday May 17th, MAHV will have a booth at > Wal-Mart > on St. Charles Rock Road in St. Ann Missouri where they will raise > funds, > promote trigger locks, and conduct a "say no to guns" art session for > young > children. Im sure the MAHV will have an ample supply of red crayons > standing by. Wal-Mart has pledged to match any funds the MAHV raises. > > Phone calls and letters to the store manager, a Mr. Tom Yarbrough, > explained the concerns of gun owners, and offered to provide trained > firearms experts from the Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri > (SACMO) to > set up an educational booth to explain the limitations and the dangers > of > misapplying trigger locks, and to show the public how to safely use > them in > an overall scheme of safe firearms storage. Yarbrough declined. I jusy got off the phone with the store manager Tom Yarbrough, first off I must say he was extreamly and causiously NICE to me. I told him I was very concerned about what I had heard on the internet about the fund raiser by MAHV Mr. Yarbrough told me he had only learned of this issue yesterday, and that he had an NRA member call him and inform him of this situation. He told me that he told this NRA member that the issue was not a done deal. and that the NRA member told him he was going to put it out over the internet anyway. I went ahead and told him I was a pro-gunner and an NRA member to get that out of the way and I told him I was also a stock holder. I informed him that I was trying to approach this issue with him as a stock holder. I thought this would get better results then the pro-gun stand. It don't matter to me what they think motivates me, all I care about is the end result. I think if the stock holders as well come out and express their concern it will help greatly. He listened to everything I said to him, I told him I could not believe Wal-Mart would get involved in such a politicaly charged issue and that it was unwise to open themselves up to such an issue as this. I expressed to him that it would be best if Wal-Mart would just stick to helping out the Childrens Merical Network and like causes. He told me that thats one of the reasons he was doing this in the first place because Wal-Mart lets individual stores donate so much money per year to charities. ( which is indeed true ) But I told him I do not think that this gun control organization is considered a charity and that you would not even be able to deduct contributions on your tax's. He told me that this group did have a tax letter, so I guess he was saying it was classified as a charity. I asked him to reconsider and elect not to hold this event and he said they were going to rethink thier decision to hold this thing. He told me that his store was approched by this organization and was asked if they could just setup a booth and hold a small fund raiser. I then questioned their decision to match the funds which led us to the point I typed above about the Miracle Network. I myself DO NOT believe this organization is listed as a charity but that is just my belief nothing more. Thats what happened on my end, my own personal opinion of the matter ::: Remember this is my opinion of mine based on how this guy acted with me on the phone. The manager seemed scared, like he got himself into something far bigger then he ever expected. He seemed willing to cave in if he caught enough slack from this. He seemed really worried about the fallout from this since it has been posted on the Internet. Of course I helped out his fear, I told him I have been on Internet for a long time and when something like this gets spread on the internet, he would have about 2 days before his phone will be jammed. He seemed quite concerned. I know Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart has and will at times yank a manager from a store or demote them for screwups like these. They pretty much let the managers of the stores handle their own local stuff pertaining to this sort of thing. That is as long as they dont screwup. I dont think this will result in something happening like this though. Usually they will be warned a number of times before something drastic happens. But then again mabye this guy already messed up in the past, you never know. Anyway everyone needs to call the local store where this is happening and the Wal-Mart headquarters. It may help prevent this in the future. John 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: Subject: WSJ: On breaking a stonewall Date: 05 May 1998 13:22:17 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =============================================== [06] On Breaking a Stonewall WSJ The steady din coming out of the White House is beginning to sound like summer locusts high in the evening trees: unfair, unfair, unfair, unfair. No matter the subject, source or substance, it's all unfair. Here's Rahm Emanuel scratching over the weekend at House Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton: "Never before in history has a chairman done what he has done." Well, never before in history has so much chutzpah carried so many so far. The weekend doesn't pass that Kenneth Starr, Dan Burton or some other critic of the Clinton compound isn't accused of violating Marquis of Queensbury rules for the manner in which they chip and chisel at the vast stonewall that now separates this White House from the rest of the country. How else to break a stonewall built with the power of the executive branch and the complicity of Democrats in Congress? We are reminded of the wonderful colloquy last December between FBI Director Louis Freeh and Rep. Burton. Mr. Burton: "Over 65 people have invoked the Fifth Amendment or fled the country in the course of the committee's investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you have prosecuted or been involved?" Mr. Freeh: "Actually, I have. . . . I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City, and many people were frequently unavailable." Since that exchange, the number of the unwilling has risen to more than 90 witnesses. Among those pleading the Fifth are key Clinton operatives John Huang and Mark Middleton, Democratic fund-raisers Nora and Gene Lum, Florida witness Charles Intriago, and a gaggle of low-level figures tied to the Al Gore/Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raiser, to the shakedown of the Arapaho Indian tribes, and to the Charlie Trie network. Mr. Trie's partner Antonio Pan has fled the country, as have key probe figures Ted Sioeng, Pauline Kanchanalak and others. Among those refusing to be interviewed overseas by U.S. investigators are such central figures as the Riadys of Indonesia and Mr. Trie's money source, Ng Lap Seng of Macau. On April 23, Democrats on Mr. Burton's committee blocked grants of immunity to four witnesses, even as the Justice Department expressed no objection. The four were associates of Johnny Chung, the Lums and Ted Sioeng. Clearly, the committee's 19 Democratic votes against immunity were what caused an impatient Speaker Gingrich's criticisms last week. Still, what seemed to most preoccupy the Beltway through that cycle was whether Mr. Burton had violated community standards by calling the President a scumbag. Washington's textual deconstructionists were similarly shocked at the release of the Hubbell prison tapes, obsessing over the manner in which they were edited, but showing less interest in the tapes' substance--"I guess I have to roll over again"--which more than hints at a coverup. All that activity is over in the House of Representatives. The Senate, meanwhile, has been in conversation with career U.S. Attorney Charles La Bella. The air has filled up the past 48 hours with attempts to delegitimize the weekend disclosure of Mr. La Bella's recommendation to Janet Reno in November that she appoint an independent counsel for campaign finance. Against these rationalizations, Senate Republicans should here follow the House's cue and play hardball. And with good reason. Janet Reno is using the independent counsel law as a shield. In fact, the Attorney General has always had the power to make such an appointment; this is precisely what was done during Watergate and Teapot Dome. The law was created to further enable such a decision, not to erect Ms. Reno's casuistical barriers. Kenneth Starr, for his part, exists as a court officer under that same law, appointed by a decision of the Attorney General and named by three federal judges. This office of independent counsel, in the course of its history, has met with Susan McDougal's contempt of a federal court (leading to a second indictment yesterday), with the White House's inability to disclose Rose Law Firm billing records that later just appeared, with former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell's welshing on promised cooperation after pleading guilty to two felonies, and with at least three separate White House claims of privilege. Each of these is a large stone in the White House stronghold. The serial claims of privilege are especially egregious, given the context. To date, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has kept Secret Service privilege and executive privilege litigation under seal. Defensible, perhaps, under normal circumstances, but set against the White House's record of suppression, we strongly think these proceedings should be open. On this page recently, attorney Douglas Caddy, who represented E. Howard Hunt and other Watergate plumbers, described how Judge John Sirica used outrageous sentences to compel co-operation, which is to say, compel the truth. We don't recall screams from civil libertarians then, recognizing we suspect that it takes a hardball to break a stonewall mounted by a President. One more point about then and now. Eventually in the course of Watergate, GOP politicians who cared deeply about the integrity of public institutions stepped forward and helped justice take its course. Where are such Democrats today? When a Congressional committee has received permission from Justice to immunize four useful witnesses, why is Henry Waxman able to get 19 Democrats to stand solidly in opposition, like a stonewall? 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 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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: ED: Government Tracking Our Kids (fwd) Date: 05 May 1998 12:46:48 PST On May 5, Jo wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >>From: "mynotes2u" >>Subject: Fw: Government Tracking Our Kids >>Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:15:00 -0700 > >>PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TRACKING YOUR KIDS >>(Maybe it's time you pull them out of public school!) >>by Cheryl Hymes >> >>For those of you who are concerned with the increase of government efforts >to use your Social Security Number to set up databases on law-abiding >>citizens, you will want to read the following document. It is the >"School-To-Work Data Collection Guide for teachers in Oregon, but it will >>apply to every state since the program is to be standardized across the >U.S. (It's part of the Goals 2000, Careers Act Workforce Partnership Act, >>School-to-Work federal education reform poison.) America's children are >being tracked in ways that have NEVER been attempted in the past. >> >>Note the tables on page one which link a child with a student ID (using a >Social Security Number) to county government and an employer ID. This >>student/school/government/employment tracking is to go on even AFTER the >student graduates. Tell me, how is this much different than the dossiers >that the communist government builds on every Chinese citizen that follows >them for life? Remember that Karl Marx said public education should be >tightly linked to labor/industry in the Communist Manifesto. Are we >>somehow different in America, if we link schoolkids to labor databases??? >>Remember that Marc Tucker, chief author of all the Goals 2000, OBE, and >School-to-Work education reforms (and close friend of Hillary Clinton) has >admitted that he is patterning his vision for education reform in the U.S. >upon the Soviet Union's polytechnical schools. >> >>A couple of sentences in this guide for educators stand out: >> >>"This ID (student tracking number --- SSN) will be used to input student >course information and for reporting data about the student in FUTURE years >>and must remain the same number (ID) over the years reported.... The SSN >should be verified against the student's SSN card to be sure it is correct. >>... The student may not be mandated to provide the SSN. (but an >alternative tracking number will still be assigned)" >> >>Students will also be coded for disabilities -- including "severe >emotional disturbances." This could really hamper future employment >opportunities to have such a code follow you. >> >>The time drain on teachers or school officials will be enormous. >School-to-Work mentorships or apprenticeships in this guide call for >anywhere from 5 hours per month per student to 35 hours per week per >student. (I guess school work will be extracurricular.) Can you imagine >the scheduling burden of finding employers and matching every teenager with >employers! When will kids learn history, algebra, chemistry, literature, >>creative writing, etc....? This program will rob time from teachers, >cheat taxpayers, and rob students of academic learning time. With >mandatory apprenticeships, the social tinkerers have just found a source of >free slave labor. >> >>My reaction: Just educate America's kids in school on academics. Don't >turn public schools into a bunch of government-personnel agencies with >databases on every student and employer. We'll find our own employment >without being monitored and tracked by the state. Get out of our lives, >Big Brother. >>If you have been accepting of Goals 2000 and OBE education reforms, wake >up. The bridge to the future is going to enslave our kids and they won't >even be eduated enough to realize it. >> >>Share the following attached document with friends who are not aware of >what education reforms are really doing. >> >>---------- >>> Subject: Re: STW Data Collection Guide >>> Date: Monday, May 04, 1998 5:33 PM >> >>Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora3\attach\9031.doc" >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Jackie Juntti >Washington Grassroots Email Network >idzrus@earthlink.net >messageboard: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb70701 > >Please join the discussion on these subjects on our new messageboard. >Attachment Converted: C:\CNMNET\EUDORA\9031.doc [------------------------- 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: IP: [Fwd: Abort the United Nations] (fwd) Date: 05 May 1998 16:34:14 -0500 (CDT) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --1915762710-1214266244-894404054=:10672 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --1915762710-1214266244-894404054=:10672 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Content-Description: Return-Path: Received: from mail-gw1adm.rcsntx.swbell.net (mail-gw1adm.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.60.101]) by mail1.rcsntx.swbell.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA21808; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:13:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kewlaid.highfiber.com (highfiber.com [208.131.137.4]) by mail-gw1adm.rcsntx.swbell.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA13564; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:13:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from highfiber.highfiber.com (ip141.dial-up.highfiber.com [208.131.137.141]) by kewlaid.highfiber.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA08818; Mon, 4 May 1998 08:13:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980504081320.0081d1b0@mail.highfiber.com> X-Sender: cabhop@mail.highfiber.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/btlines/980504.btl.abort.united.nations.html Monday, May 4, 1998 between the lines By Joseph Farah Abort the United Nations WASHINGTON -- I don't know. Maybe it's me. But I'm a little confused. I get that way when I visit Washington. Apparently, so do some of the folks who live here. Let me try to sort it out. The Republican leadership in Congress decided to teach Bill Clinton a lesson last week by approving his request to pay nearly a billion dollars in "debt" to the United Nations -- but only with a rider supposedly prohibiting the use of the money to support abortion. The thinking in the Capitol is that Clinton will now veto the bill because of the restriction. Huh? What's the point? What exactly is the message that Congress is trying to send the president and the American people with this action? Here are a few possibilities: The only bad thing about the United Nations is that it propagates abortion. It's time to test whether Bill Clinton is more excited about killing unborn babies or supporting world government. The Congress doesn't have the courage to say "no" to the United Nations. The Congress doesn't have the courage simply to say "no" to subsidizing abortion on a worldwide scale. While here in Washington I had the oppportunity to hear House Majority Leader Dick Armey explain how happy he was that President Clinton was planning to veto the U.N. payment because of the abortion rider. It seems to me, however, that the Congress is mixing apples and oranges -- confusing the real issues at stake. Sure it's bad that the U.N. spends some of its money subsidizing International Planned Parenthood and other population control organizations and programs throughout the world. But is that the only evil Congress sees as far as the U.N. is concerned? Worse yet, the Congress appears to be conceding that the United States actually owes the United Nations money. That is simply not true. It is provably and demonstrably false. As a new report by the CATO Institute clearly shows, it is in fact the U.N. which owes the United States lots and lots of money. Over the past five years, the United States, through the executive branch, has illegally and unconstitutionally provided between $11 billion and $15 billion in military and other assistance to the U.N. for which it has not been reimbursed. How does the administration justify expenditures without the approval of Congress? In 1994, the White House issued Presidential Decision Directive 25. What we know about PDD25, we know from leaks in the press. But PDD25 remains a secret document never released to the public or even the Congress. Apparently, this dictatorial directive is all the justification Bill Clinton thinks he needs to continue to spend your money and mine on supporting the U.N.'s worldwide police operations. Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers of this country would have thought about such an outrage? Yet, the ultimate watchdog of the government -- the press -- accepts such imperial decisions by the administration. The Congress not only continues to abdicate its own responsibility in representing the interests of the people on matters of spending money and war-making, it helps cover up the illegal activities of the administration. Is it any wonder we can't get answers with regard to other scandals enveloping this White House? So, there you have it, my friends. The so-called U.S. debt to the United Nations is as phony as the so-called "budget surplus" we keep hearing about from the president, Congress and the establishment press. This is your money being sent abroad for mischievous reasons. They are your sons and daughters risking their lives for the ignoble cause of world government. Now you now the real story. Are you going to stand by and allow it to happen? Or are you going to do something about it? The answer is not attaching weak-kneed anti-abortion riders to U.N. funding bills. The answer is aborting our relationship with the U.N. Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html [Real Audio] [ We have story's to learn here ] PSALMS:37 Deuteronomy 28:1-68 "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church,but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." --Thomas Jefferson, 1 Jan 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists --------------- "But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV) _______________________________________________ "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803) "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny." "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." +++++++++++++++++++ ><> +++++++++++++++++++++ "... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all,and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, see Jefferson On Democracy, 20 (S. Padover ed. 1939). <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< --1915762710-1214266244-894404054=:10672-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: US Secretly Backs Standby UN Army! (fwd) Date: 06 May 1998 08:52:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org Cc: act@efn.org Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.politics,alt.discrimination,misc.activism.militia,misc.survivalism -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:46:49 -0600, amp@pobox.com wrote: Stolen from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/btlindex.htm An excellent site. Thursday, April 30, 1998 U.S. secretly backs standby U.N. army No wonder Secretary of State Madeline Albright was out attacking U.N. critics recently. No wonder U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was in Hollywood recently courting celebrities like Magic Johnson to carry water for him. No wonder the U.N. and Clinton administration have been putting on a full-court press in Congress for the U.S. to pay up dues for which it is supposedly in arrears. You just knew something big was going on. The U.N. was up to something. The groundwork was being laid for a major development toward world governance. Another nail was being hammered into the coffin of U.S. national sovereignty. And here it is. Last fall the United States government voluntarily and secretly contributed $200,000 toward the establishment of a U.N. trust fund to finance and mobilize a worldwide standby army for "peacekeeping" operations. The State Department claims to have notified Congress of this investment of your tax dollars, but Capitol Hill sources questioned by the Washington Times said they did not recall any such request from the Clinton administration. When the paper asked the State Department to produce documents proving such notification, it refused - -- saying such official communications are "privileged." In other words, the administration doesn't believe U.S. taxpayers have a right to know where their money is being spent. If you think that assertion is strong, consider the statement of a U.N. secretariat official who told the Washington Times the administration gave "backdoor support" for the plan because of political sensitivity over creating an army under U.N. command and political authority. And don't let the relatively small amount of money fool you into thinking this is not a significant development. It represents a foot in the door -- an opening the administration and U.N. officials hope will force Congress to allocate more and more to a chillingly unconstitutional and ill-advised goal. "This is a president who somehow thinks he's a king or a dictator or a one-person government, and he's not," said Sen. Rod Grams, a Minnesota Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on international operations. What the U.N. is establishing is a system of military reserves -- forces that could be called up on short notice with the approval of the Security Council. Some 72 nations have already signed agreements to provide the U.N. troops or capabilities -- infantry battalions, engineers, artillery, medical, logistical support and air transport, according to officials at the world body. "Each country maintains the troops and equipment within their own armed forces," explained U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki. "It's not considered a standing army for the U.N." Can you imagine the United States training and maintaining a U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters to be deployed at the whim, not of the president and the Congress, but of the U.N. secretary-general? Worse yet, can you imagine this force being comprised and led by a bunch of foreign mercenaries? You can see just by how this development was handled that Congress is not going to safeguard the interests of the American people. This first step was taken by the administration last September. Only now, thanks to some intrepid investigative reporting by George Archibald of the Washington Times do any of us even know about it. Congress pleads ignorance. Some members speak boldly about opposing it, even while the majority in the Congress is at this very moment preparing to make a deal on paying $817 million in "back dues" to the U.N. -- money that is not really owed. So, tell me, do you still think the "black helicopter crowd" is out of its collective mind? Do you think there might be at least a grain of truth in all the sightings of U.N. military equipment spotted in various locations around the United States? Do you still believe those U.N. Heritage Areas being declared in national parks throughout the country are simply innocent markings that have no meaning to the sovereign American people? Are you still unconcerned about the U.N. posturing over global gun control? The World Trade Organization ... the World Criminal Court ... what's behind the next curtain? See, the problem never has been the U.N. alone. The real problem is the plotting by U.S. politicians in Washington with U.N. officials to extend control and authority over our lives. It's happening, folks. Wake up. There can be no compromise with the criminal conspiracy of the world-government crowd. There's only one solution -- the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. I know it sounds like too much to ask in the current political climate. But accept no alternative. Anything less will signal the slow, torturous, eventual and inevitable strangulation of freedom in the United States and around the world. Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. ====================================================================== Name: amp E-mail: amp@pobox.com Time: 08:46:49 Visit me at http://www.pobox.com/~amp == -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL #!/bin/perl -sp0777i 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3 iQA/AwUBNVBLhXDnKKP6IdMiEQIiPACgzWTX63L3EQqjELMPiAJsP0rE4HYAmwWt RuwooAXS65IpVtOSzvaDhr/l =LDJR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: CIA says many unprepared for millennium glitch (fwd) Date: 06 May 1998 08:51:01 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded - Reuters: ----------------------- >CIA says many unprepared for millennium glitch > >Source: Reuters / Tue, 5 May 1998 11:45:52 PDT > >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Many countries appear ill prepared for the >disruption to basic services that the Year 2000 computer glitch may cause, >the head of the Central Intelligence Agency office studying the issue said >Tuesday. > >"We're concerned about the potential disruption of power grids, >telecommunications and banking services" among other possible fallout, >especially in countries already torn by political tensions, Sherry Burns >said. > >In an interview with Reuters, she said CIA systems engineers and >intelligence analysts were focusing beyond the technical problem of >reprogramming computers to recognize dates when the Millennium dawns on >Jan. 1, 2000. > >Instead, the spy agency has begun to collect and analyze information on >preparations for the "social, political and economic tumult" that could >flow from interruptions of essential services in some fragile societies. > >Millions of computers and embedded chips -- some central to financial >markets, air traffic control systems and even running elevators and heating >systems in office buildings -- cannot distinguish between 1900 and 2000 >because years have been expressed in two-digit shorthand in old >programming. > >The glitch, known as the Y2K problem, may trigger widespread disruptions >because not all computers will be fixed by Dec. 31, 1999. > >With the world's computer networks largely linked, the use of data that has >been converted to the new millennium standard improperly -- or not >converted at all -- could infect newly reprogrammed systems, Burns said. > >According to the CIA assessment, the threat of turmoil is greatest among >those unaware of the key role that bits and bytes play in providing >essential services and bringing goods to markets, even in less developed >countries. > >"There is very little realization that there will be disruption" of basic >services as some computers shut down or go haywire, even among business >leaders, Burns said. > >"As you start getting out into the population, I think most people are >again assuming that things are going to operate the way they always have," >she said. "That is not going to be the case." > >Many governments are "unprepared for what could potentially be some fairly >tough circumstances," she added. > >In an initial effort to gauge preparations, the CIA received a wide range >of feedback last year, not all of it very encouraging, Burns said. > >One overseas contact said his country would be safe because it used a >"different calendar." Others acknowledged the issue was not on their >radar scope. Someone from a Middle Eastern country told the CIA not to >worry about the millennium "bug." > >"When we see it, we'll spray for it," Burns paraphrased that source as >saying. > >She said Canada, Britain and Australia were about six months behind the >United States in preparing their systems for the switch, and this was the >group in the best shape. > >The rest of Western Europe, led by the Scandinavians, came next, six to >nine months behind the United States. > >Europe's job is compounded by the need to reprogram millions of computers >for next January's introduction in 11 countries of the euro, the new >unified currency. > >The CIA felt Europe probably would be unable to complete both reprogramming >jobs "effectively" in time, Burns said. > >Japan, China, Hong Kong and most other Pacific Rim countries were "maybe >nine months to a year behind in terms of where the work should be," Burns >said. She put Russia in the same category. > >Latin America was "way behind the power curve," added Burns, who reports >to CIA Chief Information Officer John Dahms, the person responsible for >maintenance of information systems. > >As part of the agency's increased interest in the Y2K program, some CIA >employees have been briefed on preparing themselves individually for >potential fallout. > >They were being advised to pay their bills early in December 1999 to avoid >possible processing problems, keep cash on hand in case automatic teller >machines failed and lay in extra blankets in case of a blackout on a cold >New Year's Eve night, Burns said. ----------------------- 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. ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: Clinton Mystery "Payoff" (fwd) Date: 06 May 1998 13:06:26 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: London Telegraph International News=20 Electronic Telegraph=20 Wednesday 6 May 1998 Issue 1076 =20 Mystery of 'payoff' to President By Hugo Gurdon in Washington=20 A CHEQUE marked "Payoff Clinton" has been found by prosecutors investigating the President's alleged corruption while governor of Arkansas in the Eighties. The $5,081 cheque was written by Susan McDougal, who was convicted of fraud in May 1996, and former Clinton business partner charged with criminal contempt and obstruction of justice on Monday for refusing to explain what the words meant. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel leading the inquiry, has indicated that he will wind up the Arkansas grand jury this week. But the cheque and Hillary Clinton's suspect financial records could be raised again with the grand jury in Washington in the scandal over Monica Lewinsky, Mr Clinton's alleged former lover. Mrs McDougal refused to answer questions from Mr Starr's staff or grand jury members, accusing Mr Starr of being politically motivated. According to transcripts of the interrogation, at one point, a prosecutor said: "Mrs McDougal, what did you mean by the notation 'Payoff Clinton'?" In reply she said: "I don't believe your office has the right to ask me any questions." =A9 Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998. ----------------------- 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 ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton and China ICBMs pointed at America Date: 06 May 1998 13:26:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980505.btl.nuclear.threat.clinton.lies= =2E html not to be used for commercial purposes The nuclear threat and Clinton lies=20 WorldNetDaily.com =20 Tuesday, May 5, 1998=20 Joseph Farah=20 Feb. 11, 1996: "If you look at the role America has played=20 in the world, we should be rejoicing. ... There are no more=20 nuclear missiles >pointed at any children in the United States.=20 I'm proud of that. ..." =20 Feb. 15, 1996: "I asked you to give me a=20 chance to try to give America a more secure future and a more=20 peaceful, more democratic world. And the fact that there are no=20 nuclear missiles pointed at any American children for the first=20 time since the dawn of the nuclear age is evidence of that=20 commitment kept." =20 =20 October 1996: "There is not a single, solitary=20 nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one.=20 Not one. Not a single one."=20 Over and over during his re-election campaign in 1996,=20 President Clinton bragged about having ended the threat of=20 nuclear arms to American soil -- and, of course, to America's=20 children. Those who bothered to inform themselves on such=20 security issues understood that his boasts rang hollow -- that=20 Russian nuclear weapons could be retargeted on American cities in=20 a matter of minutes. Nevertheless, few challenged the "technical"=20 accuracy of Clinton's unambiguous claims.=20 It is impossible to know how critical to Clinton's re- election effort such phony claims were. But they were phony. They=20 were bogus. There was nothing accurate about them at all. Not one=20 thing. Not one. Not a single one.=20 A new CIA report says that 13 of China's 18 long-range=20 strategic missiles are aimed at U.S. cities. U.S. intelligence=20 operatives conclude only one thing from this: China views America=20 as its No. 1 strategic adversary.=20 Yet, the Clinton administration's major foreign policy=20 initiative has been to work toward closer partnership with this=20 regime in Beijing. So much for "constructive engagement."=20 The White House has gone so far as to draw up a space=20 cooperation agreement with China that would permit the transfer=20 of technology that could enhance the accuracy and effectiveness=20 of its nuclear missiles. But, as we have seen in the case of=20 Hughes Electronics and Loral Space and Communications, long=20 before the formal agreement was advanced, the Clinton=20 administration was winking at improper efforts by U.S. businesses=20 to share missile data with China. The abuses are so flagrant, so=20 egregious, so treacherous, that Clinton's own Justice Department=20 is now investigating those companies and the apparent conflicts=20 of interest the incidents raise.=20 Remember, President Clinton also initiated the plan to=20 base the Chinese Overseas Shipping Co. in the strategic naval=20 port in Long Beach, Calif. COSCO is a direct subsidiary of the=20 People's Liberation Army.=20 Clinton also pushed hard for "Most Favored Nation"=20 status for China. He refused to sign a United Nations report=20 condemning China's flagrant human rights abuses. Then there was=20 the decision by the Department of Commerce to reclassify formerly=20 restricted military technology for supercomputers, radiation- resistant computer chips, satellite geo-positioners, submarine=20 and stealth technology, high-tech missile engine tools and more.=20 U.S. companies have been selling all of these items to the=20 Chinese ever since.=20 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, is also investigating=20 reports that several U.S. companies, including Motorola, helped=20 improve Chinese missiles by supplying "stage-separation"=20 technology.=20 "I am very sad to say (the Chinese) now have the=20 capability of landing nuclear weapons in the United States and we=20 are the ones who perfected their rockets," said Rohrabacher.=20 Not quite accurate, congressman. "We" didn't perfect=20 the rockets. The blame lies squarely with President Clinton, who=20 took campaign money from Chinese sources, accepted cash from=20 multinational corporations more interested in their big contracts=20 with China than in American security, and sold out America's=20 vital national interests to Beijing at every turn.=20 Clinton did it all while lying audaciously and=20 straightfaced to the American people about having ended the=20 nuclear threat to our country's "children." Some day those=20 children, God willing, will grow up and write the history that=20 will judge this man and his administration.=20 If that history is written in English, rather than=20 Chinese, it will not be kind to President Clinton.=20 =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 This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: Here Comes the World Court Again (fwd) Date: 06 May 1998 13:12:40 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: Washington Times Clinton on path to world tribunal By Betsy Pisik THE WASHINGTON TIMES NEW YORK The Clinton administration hopes a new war-crimes tribunal for Cambodia will not only bring Khmer Rouge leaders to a long-delayed justice, but underscore its argument for a permanent court to try crimes against humanity. "It reinforces the view that we need to establish a more permanent court," America's ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, said in an interview last week. "Human rights violators and perpetrators of ... the most profound genocide in history need to be tried." But congressional leaders in Washington complained they were not consulted about a tribunal for Cambodia and said the United States would bear a disproportionate share of the costs. "This is typical of the administration to go ahead and commit the United States to spending money on a U.N. program and then coming to Congress and presenting a bill with a fait accompli," said Marc Thiessen, spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other analysts -- including those who favor a permanent international criminal court -- say the bid to establish a Cambodia tribunal faces obstacles that show how difficult it will be to build a standing court. They also say differences in the U.N. Security Council over the proposed tribunal illustrate the shortcomings in the American demand that the council have sole authority to refer cases to a standing international criminal court. In six weeks, thousands of international experts will meet in Rome to determine the final shape of the permanent court. These negotiations are expected to be arduous, with major questions -- including the role of the council -- still to be decided. The United States on Thursday submitted to the Security Council a proposal to set up an ad hoc court to hear cases against Khmer Rouge leaders accused of killing more than 1 million people over a four-year period ending in 1979. The plan -- which could come to a vote within the next two weeks --would set up a court in existing space at The Hague. The idea has reportedly been endorsed by ousted Cambodian First Prime Minister Prince Norodom Ranariddh as well as the present leader of Cambodia, one-time Khmer Rouge member Hun Sen. The Chinese, who for years supported the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam, have declared their opposition to the tribunal, saying the Cambodian genocide was an internal matter and should be handled internally. It is not clear whether China will veto the matter if it comes to a vote in the Security Council or merely abstain, as the administration is hoping. There are also questions about how the Russians will respond. The idea also faces criticism in Congress. "If you're going to add tens of millions of dollars [for a Cambodia tribunal], the money's got to come from somewhere," a Senate Foreign Relations Committee source said. "Where's it going to come from? What's the priority?" The existing tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda are costing a total of $99.1 million this year and are projected to go higher next year, according to U.N. figures. The United States has been assessed $29.7 million as its share this year, according to a formula where it is charged 25 percent on half the costs and 31 percent -- the same as for peacekeeping missions -- on the other half. However Congress has forbidden the United States to pay at a rate of more than 25 percent, so Washington will actually pay slightly less than $25 million. U.N. accountants will charge up the difference to U.S. arrears to the world body. State Department officials said it was not yet clear whether funding for a Cambodian court would be added to the same budget. There have been suggestions that U.N. members might be asked to make voluntary contributions, but the idea is untested and may not be feasible. The Cambodia tribunal is opposed on more philosophical grounds by former Assistant Secretary of State John Bolton, who suggested the Clinton administration was using the proposal as a way to make a standing court more palatable. "The Cambodia tribunal is a mistake. I think [administration officials] see it as a no-brainer. It is an additional argument for their own court," said Mr. Bolton, who is now a senior vice president with the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "What's wrong with the concept of an international criminal court is, it fundamentally takes away from a country its ability to reconcile its past." Mr. Bolton said a nation may choose to prosecute genocide itself, build a non-punishing "truth and reconciliation" commission such as South Africa has done, or simply adopt a blanket amnesty and move on. He emphasized that it should be up to the nation concerned to feel its own way through the process, rather than seeking closure through the international community. But human rights lawyer Jelena Pejic said a Cambodia tribunal is important on its own merits, even as it underscores the need for a permanent war crimes court. "How many times can you establish an ad hoc tribunal without it being seen as selective justice?" she asked. "When Cambodia and not Liberia? You always have that question." Miss Pejic, who works with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and favors a highly independent permanent court, said the expected debate over the Cambodia tribunal highlights the problems inherent in the American approach. "The prosecutor will in future situations likely be paralyzed by a single [permanent] member," she said. "China's reluctance to agree to this shows exactly why an [international criminal court] needs to be independent to be effective." George Archibald in Washington contributed to this report. Copyright =A9 1998 News World Communications, Inc. ----------------------- 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 ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: GOP Says U.S. Gave China Nuclear Edge (fwd) Date: 06 May 1998 13:09:43 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: Washington Post GOP Says U.S. Gave China Nuclear Edge Donations, Satellite Transfer Policy Linked By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A04=20 Congressional Republicans plan a series of hearings to investigate whether President Clinton's policy on the export of commercial satellites to China has allowed the Chinese to acquire technology to improve the accuracy of their nuclear missiles, according to GOP lawmakers and aides. The hearings will focus on Clinton's decisions to allow two U.S. aerospace companies, Loral Space and Communications Ltd. and Hughes Electronic Corp., to export satellites to be launched atop Chinese rockets. The Justice Department has been investigating a report that Loral improperly gave China advice to upgrade the guidance systems on its rockets after a failed launch in 1996 destroyed a Loral satellite. Both House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Senate Majority Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have taken an active interest in the congressional probes, i= n part because the aerospace firms have been major contributors to the Democratic Party. Loral's chief executive officer, Bernard L. Schwartz, was the single largest donor to the Democratic Party in 1996. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find a link between the financial contributions and a decision by Clinton earlier this year that they say effectively undercut the criminal investigation of Loral. The decision allowed Loral to launch another satellite and to provide China with the same type of information that was the subject of the Justice Department inquiry. White House officials have denied any political influence on satellite poli= cy, which they say has limited weapons proliferation by encouraging commercial cooperation with China dating back to the 1980s. "Our policy specifically excludes the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology= ," said National Security Council spokesman P.J. Crowley. "We believe there are adequate safeguards in place that preclude U.S. companies from providing assistance to China with respect to the design, development, operation, maintenance, modification, or repair of launch vehicles." Though House Republicans and Democrats have sparred on campaign finance issues in recent days, senior GOP members regard the allegations surrounding the satellite policy and China as the most potentially explosiv= e issue this year. After months of investigating contributions to the Democratic Party, Republicans said, the incident may illustrate how corporate donations shaped the administration's policy in a way that threatens U.S. security. The issue stems from the desire of U.S. space firms to save time and money by launching their satellites on Chinese rockets. Under sanctions imposed after the 1989 anti-democracy crackdown in Tiananmen Square, Presidents Clinton and George Bush have issued waivers for firms to export satellites under strict guidelines designed to safeguard U.S. technology. After Hughes and Loral received an export waiver in 1996, China launched a $200 million Loral satellite on a rocket that crashed. Subsequently, scientists from the two companies advised China on how to improve its guidance systems for future launches. According to a secret May 1997 Pentagon report, first disclosed by the New York Times last month, this advice also strengthened China's nuclear capability. The Pentagon report concluded that "United States national security has been harmed" by the exchange, the article said. A Justice Department investigation sparked by the Pentagon report is still ongoing. But Clinton's decision in February to approve the export of another Loral satellite to China, and permitting the kind of advice that is reportedly at the heart of the Justice Department's investigation, effectiv= ely deflated the probe, according to critics. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics, said that he has been authorized by Gingrich to take the lead in the congressional investigation. He charged in a speech on the floor Thursday night that "President Clinton and his administration have been doing everything they can to quash the investigation of this possible violation of law, this betrayal of our country." Gingrich "is very focused on this issue," Rohrabacher added in an interview. "He believes it's going to emerge as an issue far more important than any White House sex scandals. It's embarrassing to talk about a sex scandal. There's nothing embarrassing about calling the president to task about the giveaway of American technology to the Red Chinese." Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said at his weekly press briefing, "We now have revelations that we had special dispensation given to a defense contractor to sell to the Chinese the technology that would enable them to effectively target their nuclear weapons to the United States." Armey added, "This is a matter of consequence when that contractor is a substantial contributor to the Democratic Party. These things need to be investigated and people need to come through." According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Schwartz gave $632,000 in "soft money" donations in the 1995-96 cycle and another $421,000 in the current electoral cycle, nearly all of which went to Democrats. Loral has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the case. "Our employees acted in good faith. The company initiated an independent examination of the incident and concluded that there was no violation of th= e export control laws," said Thomas B. Ross, vice president of government relations at Loral. "We shared the results with the State Department and have fully cooperated with the government." Both the Senate and House investigations would span a swath of committees. In late April, Gingrich met with chairmen of the House International Relations, National Security, and intelligence committees, while Lott met with members of Senate panels, including Governmental Affairs and Foreign Relations. "This is a national security issue, and it has to be cleared up in the next couple weeks," Gingrich said yesterday, adding that it would be "absolutely intolerable" if Clinton's satellite policy were changed to reward a donor. House and Senate investigators have asked the administration to hand over information concerning the waivers. On May 20, the Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee on international security, proliferation and federatio= n services will hold a hearing on how commercial satellite transfers can benefit long-range missile programs. The distinction between commercial and military satellites is important, because different rules govern the exports of the two technologies. Clinton eased the way for the export of satellite technology when he delegated most of the administration's licensing duties from the State Department to the Commerce Department, which promotes the sale of U.S. products abroad, a move now criticized by Republicans. =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company ----------------------- 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 ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 1911a1@gte.net Subject: Court Orders Fair NRA Election Date: 06 May 1998 14:17:29 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. NOTICE: Second Amendment Action Committee Meeting For all NRA members with a few exceptions. 7 PM FRIDAY NIGHT JUNE 5, 1998. Holiday Inn Select, Center City: the level above the restaurant level, called the "meeting level," in the Benjamin Ballroom. This unfortunately (and unavoidably) conflicts with the Friends of the NRA Dinner scheduled for the same time. The Friends of NRA meeting would cost you $50 a head. There is not time enough to make both meetings. ----- Begin Forwarded Text The following is reproduced from the March 1, 1998 issue of The New Gun Week. Much of what is contained is old news, but Tartaro offers some insight into the history of the fair elections bylaw, and to the history of the internal politicking that led to the court battle. COURT ORDERS FAIR NRA ELECTION by Joseph P. Tartaro Executive Editor On Feb. 5, two days before the most recent meeting of the National Rifle Associations board of directors, a New York state Supreme Court judge issued a temporary injunction requiring the NRAs leadership to follow the letter of the Associations bylaws in the 1998 balloting for 26 seats on the board of directors. The order signed by Judge Beatrice Shainswit in Manhattan came just prior to the deadline for printing of the March issues of the three magazines which carry the annual ballot. It prohibits management from showing on the ballot or anywhere in the official journal the method of nomination for candidates. The bylaw in question, Article VIII, Section 3(e), adopted in 1979, states: In both the official journal and on the official ballot, no persons nominated by the petition nor by the Nominating Committee shall be so designated. The court order is the result of a pleading in New York state, where NRA is incorporated, by 10 candidates for the board qualified for the 1998 ballot by petition of members, led by Howard Fezell, a practicing attorney and NRA director who was not renominated by the Nominating Committee. Fezell had written to Edward J. Land, NRA secretary, on Dec. 17, 1997 requesting that any designation as to the manner in which Fezell was nominated as a candidate be removed from his biography to be published in the official journal. He further requested that NRA notify all candidates whose biographical sketches contain any reference to the method of nomination that such designations are not permitted by the bylaws. And he asked assurance that the report of the Nominating Committee listing its choices not be printed. When he received no response, Fezell, in company with other petition candidates, filed the suit. The NRA immediately cross filed and asked that the action be dismissed. After citing case law in the subject, Shainswit wrote: Based upon the foregoing principles of law, the court can reach only one conclusion with respect to the bylaw at issue. It says what it says in very unambiguous terms....it clearly and unequivocally says that candidates cannot be so designated in both the official journal and on the ballot. Therefore, defendants evidence of a different intent behind adoption of the bylaw in 1979 and its subsequent interpretation by NRA Boards, members, and candidates for the past 20 years is inadmissible. The following week, the battle moved to the Washington, DC, media where The Washington Times published a story which was obviously spin-doctored by NRA leaders because the suit was reported to be an effort by NRA dissidents to block leaderships plan to publicize endorsements. The Times quoted NRA President Marion Hammer as saying, This effort is about keeping Charlton Heston from becoming president of the NRA and trying to get rid of Wayne LaPierre as well. This is the first time in our history that a sitting member of the board would sue the organization....Bringing the courts in to tell us how to run the organization, rather than the board, is just unconscionable. The paper quoted Fezell as saying: I have volunteered thousands of hours of time to preserve the right to keep and bear arms and never thought I would see the day I would be involved in litigation with the NRA, but it was the only way to ensure a fair election. The next day, The Times printed a letter from Neal Knox, another NRA director, that said The judges ruling may have saved the NRA the embarrassment and expense of having the election overturned, just as the courts overturned the Teamsters election....The issue isnt whether Vice President Charlton Heston or Executive Director (sic) Wayne LaPierre will be re-elected by the NRA boardas Im confident they willbut whether theres a fair board election, which is what the court ordered. How the voting members of the NRA will react to this phase of the internal battle that has been going on since late 1996 remains to be seen. The leadership wants to make it seem that the board election this year is a referendum on LaPierre and Heston. The other faction is trying to overcome the tremendous advantages of incumbency and management control of the official journal. The battle over designating the method of nominating candidatesand even the two nominating processeshave been the source of internal discord for over 20 years. And while board members may not have sued the Association before, the board has sued members, and individual members have sued and won to clarify their rights. The court has been and continues to be an unwelcome but necessary option. The main purpose of some of the changes made in Cincinnati in 1977 was to make the board more accountable and responsive to the members and their interests. Under the old president-appointed nominating committee system, the outcome of board elections was pre-determined by NRA management, usually led by the president, and was seldom in doubt. If a person was nominated, they were elected. Before then, the only alternative to the committees slate, frequently including only as many nominees as vacancies, was the write-in option. However, no one was ever elected by write-in. Two of the bylaw changes adopted in Cincinnati were designed to reduce the tremendous power of the president to perpetuate the board in his or her own image. The one bylaw amendment gave the board power to elect the nominating committee and required the board to choose three of the committees nine members from among the voting membership at large. The other provided for nomination by a petition containing at least 250 valid signatures of voting members. These bylaw changes enacted by the members in 1977 governed the elections which took place the next year. In 1978, NRA-voting members elected 27 board members using the new method for the first time. The numeral 1 was used on the ballot to designate those nominated by committee, the numeral 2 to designate those nominated by petition. Both numbers were used for any candidate with dual nomination. It should be noted that in 1978, the first board-elected nominating committee named 35 candidates for 27 board vacancies, thereby offering the NRA voting members for the first time a wider choice. However, 15 candidates also were nominated by petition, three of whom also had nominating committee endorsement. In that election, seven petition-only candidates were elected for the first time. Seventeen candidates nominated only by the committee were elected. However, the candidates ranked first, second and third in the mail balloting were dual-nominated. Those interested in gaining an edge in elections took notice of this result and in 1979, several groups, including some allied with management, circulated multi-name petitions. Meanwhile, the nominating committee returned to pre-Cincinnati practices and nominated just 26 candidates for 26 vacancies. Twenty-three of the 26 were also petition nominees. As might be expected, the 23 dual nominees swept the top 23 vote-gathering slots in the 1979 election. It seemed that any power given to the members through the democratizing petition process had been neutralized. In response, the members who still proposed, debated, sometimes amended, and voted on bylaw changes on the floor of an annual meeting in those days, further amended the bylaws in 1979 to the language cited by Shainswit. But that was not the end of the matter. In 1981, at the annual meeting in Denver, the members turned back a management- proposed bylaw change which would have further changed the bylaws to actually require designations of the method of nomination on the ballot. In a May 1981 editorial which went to the core of the issue, Shooting Times said: As long as there is no indication on the ballot of how a candidate is nominated, voting members will be required to evaluate potential directors solely on the basis of their biographies and qualifications, and anti-democratic influences within the existing NRA Board will not be able to use the grassroots petition system to their advantage, as they did in 1979. It was later argued that while the NRA staff could be prohibited from showing the method of nomination on the ballot, individual nominees could include such information in the biographies they draft for publication in the NRA official journal next to the ballot. Since 1984, the management has circumvented the bylaw prohibition by having a majority of the board pass a resolution calling for publication of the Nominating Committees reportusually printed adjacent to the ballotthereby showing which candidates are endorsed by the same people who elected that nominating committee in the first place. Given the foregoing history it is not surprising that a candidate finally took the issue to court. What is surprising is that it took so long. 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: 1911a1@gte.net Subject: Court Orders Fair NRA Election Date: 06 May 1998 14:17:29 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. NOTICE: Second Amendment Action Committee Meeting For all NRA members with a few exceptions. 7 PM FRIDAY NIGHT JUNE 5, 1998. Holiday Inn Select, Center City: the level above the restaurant level, called the "meeting level," in the Benjamin Ballroom. This unfortunately (and unavoidably) conflicts with the Friends of the NRA Dinner scheduled for the same time. The Friends of NRA meeting would cost you $50 a head. There is not time enough to make both meetings. ----- Begin Forwarded Text The following is reproduced from the March 1, 1998 issue of The New Gun Week. Much of what is contained is old news, but Tartaro offers some insight into the history of the fair elections bylaw, and to the history of the internal politicking that led to the court battle. COURT ORDERS FAIR NRA ELECTION by Joseph P. Tartaro Executive Editor On Feb. 5, two days before the most recent meeting of the National Rifle Associations board of directors, a New York state Supreme Court judge issued a temporary injunction requiring the NRAs leadership to follow the letter of the Associations bylaws in the 1998 balloting for 26 seats on the board of directors. The order signed by Judge Beatrice Shainswit in Manhattan came just prior to the deadline for printing of the March issues of the three magazines which carry the annual ballot. It prohibits management from showing on the ballot or anywhere in the official journal the method of nomination for candidates. The bylaw in question, Article VIII, Section 3(e), adopted in 1979, states: In both the official journal and on the official ballot, no persons nominated by the petition nor by the Nominating Committee shall be so designated. The court order is the result of a pleading in New York state, where NRA is incorporated, by 10 candidates for the board qualified for the 1998 ballot by petition of members, led by Howard Fezell, a practicing attorney and NRA director who was not renominated by the Nominating Committee. Fezell had written to Edward J. Land, NRA secretary, on Dec. 17, 1997 requesting that any designation as to the manner in which Fezell was nominated as a candidate be removed from his biography to be published in the official journal. He further requested that NRA notify all candidates whose biographical sketches contain any reference to the method of nomination that such designations are not permitted by the bylaws. And he asked assurance that the report of the Nominating Committee listing its choices not be printed. When he received no response, Fezell, in company with other petition candidates, filed the suit. The NRA immediately cross filed and asked that the action be dismissed. After citing case law in the subject, Shainswit wrote: Based upon the foregoing principles of law, the court can reach only one conclusion with respect to the bylaw at issue. It says what it says in very unambiguous terms....it clearly and unequivocally says that candidates cannot be so designated in both the official journal and on the ballot. Therefore, defendants evidence of a different intent behind adoption of the bylaw in 1979 and its subsequent interpretation by NRA Boards, members, and candidates for the past 20 years is inadmissible. The following week, the battle moved to the Washington, DC, media where The Washington Times published a story which was obviously spin-doctored by NRA leaders because the suit was reported to be an effort by NRA dissidents to block leaderships plan to publicize endorsements. The Times quoted NRA President Marion Hammer as saying, This effort is about keeping Charlton Heston from becoming president of the NRA and trying to get rid of Wayne LaPierre as well. This is the first time in our history that a sitting member of the board would sue the organization....Bringing the courts in to tell us how to run the organization, rather than the board, is just unconscionable. The paper quoted Fezell as saying: I have volunteered thousands of hours of time to preserve the right to keep and bear arms and never thought I would see the day I would be involved in litigation with the NRA, but it was the only way to ensure a fair election. The next day, The Times printed a letter from Neal Knox, another NRA director, that said The judges ruling may have saved the NRA the embarrassment and expense of having the election overturned, just as the courts overturned the Teamsters election....The issue isnt whether Vice President Charlton Heston or Executive Director (sic) Wayne LaPierre will be re-elected by the NRA boardas Im confident they willbut whether theres a fair board election, which is what the court ordered. How the voting members of the NRA will react to this phase of the internal battle that has been going on since late 1996 remains to be seen. The leadership wants to make it seem that the board election this year is a referendum on LaPierre and Heston. The other faction is trying to overcome the tremendous advantages of incumbency and management control of the official journal. The battle over designating the method of nominating candidatesand even the two nominating processeshave been the source of internal discord for over 20 years. And while board members may not have sued the Association before, the board has sued members, and individual members have sued and won to clarify their rights. The court has been and continues to be an unwelcome but necessary option. The main purpose of some of the changes made in Cincinnati in 1977 was to make the board more accountable and responsive to the members and their interests. Under the old president-appointed nominating committee system, the outcome of board elections was pre-determined by NRA management, usually led by the president, and was seldom in doubt. If a person was nominated, they were elected. Before then, the only alternative to the committees slate, frequently including only as many nominees as vacancies, was the write-in option. However, no one was ever elected by write-in. Two of the bylaw changes adopted in Cincinnati were designed to reduce the tremendous power of the president to perpetuate the board in his or her own image. The one bylaw amendment gave the board power to elect the nominating committee and required the board to choose three of the committees nine members from among the voting membership at large. The other provided for nomination by a petition containing at least 250 valid signatures of voting members. These bylaw changes enacted by the members in 1977 governed the elections which took place the next year. In 1978, NRA-voting members elected 27 board members using the new method for the first time. The numeral 1 was used on the ballot to designate those nominated by committee, the numeral 2 to designate those nominated by petition. Both numbers were used for any candidate with dual nomination. It should be noted that in 1978, the first board-elected nominating committee named 35 candidates for 27 board vacancies, thereby offering the NRA voting members for the first time a wider choice. However, 15 candidates also were nominated by petition, three of whom also had nominating committee endorsement. In that election, seven petition-only candidates were elected for the first time. Seventeen candidates nominated only by the committee were elected. However, the candidates ranked first, second and third in the mail balloting were dual-nominated. Those interested in gaining an edge in elections took notice of this result and in 1979, several groups, including some allied with management, circulated multi-name petitions. Meanwhile, the nominating committee returned to pre-Cincinnati practices and nominated just 26 candidates for 26 vacancies. Twenty-three of the 26 were also petition nominees. As might be expected, the 23 dual nominees swept the top 23 vote-gathering slots in the 1979 election. It seemed that any power given to the members through the democratizing petition process had been neutralized. In response, the members who still proposed, debated, sometimes amended, and voted on bylaw changes on the floor of an annual meeting in those days, further amended the bylaws in 1979 to the language cited by Shainswit. But that was not the end of the matter. In 1981, at the annual meeting in Denver, the members turned back a management- proposed bylaw change which would have further changed the bylaws to actually require designations of the method of nomination on the ballot. In a May 1981 editorial which went to the core of the issue, Shooting Times said: As long as there is no indication on the ballot of how a candidate is nominated, voting members will be required to evaluate potential directors solely on the basis of their biographies and qualifications, and anti-democratic influences within the existing NRA Board will not be able to use the grassroots petition system to their advantage, as they did in 1979. It was later argued that while the NRA staff could be prohibited from showing the method of nomination on the ballot, individual nominees could include such information in the biographies they draft for publication in the NRA official journal next to the ballot. Since 1984, the management has circumvented the bylaw prohibition by having a majority of the board pass a resolution calling for publication of the Nominating Committees reportusually printed adjacent to the ballotthereby showing which candidates are endorsed by the same people who elected that nominating committee in the first place. Given the foregoing history it is not surprising that a candidate finally took the issue to court. What is surprising is that it took so long. 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: Subject: IP: NYT: Starr Grand Jury indictments, convictions, etc. (fwd) Date: 06 May 1998 14:39:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Starr Grand Jury indictments, convictions, etc. from http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/whitewater-list.html The New York Times, May 6, 1998 THE CAST The following are the direct and indirect results to date of Kenneth W. Starr's investigation into the Whitewater land deal. Convictions and Plea Agreements James B. McDougal, Former business partner of the Clintons in Whitewater land development and operator of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan; on May 28, 1996, convicted on 18 felony counts related to bad loans by Madison, including conspiracy, fraud and making false statements; sentenced to three years in prison, $10,000 fine, $4.2 million restitution; died in prison on March 8, 1998. Susan H. McDougal, Former partner with husband in Whitewater and Madison; convicted the same day on four felony counts, including mail fraud, making false statements and misapplication of funds; sentenced to two years in prison, community service, $5,000 fine, $300,000 restitution; completed 18-month term for civil contempt and has begun fraud term. Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton's successor as Arkansas Governor; on May 28, 1996, convicted on two felony counts of conspiracy and mail fraud; sentenced to four years' probation with 18 months' home detention, community service, $25,000 fine, $150,000 restitution; on Feb. 20, 1998, pleaded guilty to felony charge of conspiring to engage in sham bankruptcy to avoid paying Federal income taxes on sale of cable television system and agreed to cooperate with investigators; to be sentenced. David Hale, Former Little Rock municipal judge; on March 22, 1994, pleaded guilty to two felony counts of conspiring to defraud the Small Business Administration in connection with a $300,000 loan to McDougal; claimed that Governor Clinton had asked him to make loan; sentenced to 28 months, $10,000 fine, more than $2 million restitution. Eugene Fitzhugh, Little Rock lawyer; on June 23, 1994, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charge of improperly trying to bribe Hale; in exchange for plea, prosecutors dropped charges that he conspired with Charles Matthews to defraud the Small Business Administration; sentenced to 10 months in prison, one year supervised release, $3,000 fine. Charles Matthews, Little Rock businessman; on June 23, 1994, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of bribery; in exchange for his plea, prosecutors dropped charges that he conspired with Fitzhugh to defraud the Small Business Administration; sentenced to 16 months. Robert W. Palmer, Little Rock land appraiser; on Dec. 5, 1994, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy for filing false appraisals of the books of Madison Guaranty so they would appear to conform with banking standards; sentenced to three years of probation with first year in home detention, $5,000 fine. Webster L. Hubbell, Former Associate Attorney General and Hillary Rodham Clinton's former law partner; on Dec. 6, 1994, pleaded guilty to two felony counts of mail fraud and income-tax evasion and admitted stealing at least $394,000 from his Rose Law Firm partners and more than a dozen clients; sentenced to 21 months, $135,000 restitution. Christopher V. Wade, Whitewater real estate agent; on March 21, 1995, pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud in case marginally related to Whitewater; sentenced to 15 months, $3,000 fine. Neal T. Ainley, Former president of an Arkansas bank; on May 2, 1995, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of illegally concealing cash payments to Clinton's 1990 campaign for governor; sentenced to two years' probation with community service, $3,000 fine. Stephen A. Smith, Former aide to Governor Clinton; on June 8, 1995, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor count of conspiring to misapply a federally backed loan from a company owned by Hale; sentenced to 100 hours of community service. Larry E. Kuca, Former business associate of McDougal; on July 13, 1995, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor count of conspiracy to misapply funds of loan from company run by Hale; sentenced to two years' probation, community service, $65,862 restitution. William J. Marks Sr., Former business partner of Governor Tucker; on Aug. 28, 1997, pleaded guilty to felony charge accusing him and Tucker of conspiring to fake a bankruptcy that defrauded the Government of $2 million in taxes; in return for his plea, prosecutors dropped two charges accusing him and Tucker of lying to obtain $300,000 loan from federally backed lending company; to be sentenced. John Haley, Tucker's former lawyer; on Feb. 20, 1998, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor count that he aided and abetted others in failing to supply information to Internal Revenue Service; to be sentenced. Recent Indictments Webster L. Hubbell, On April 30, 1998, indicted on nine felony charges of conspiring to violate internal revenue laws and income tax evasion, including failure to pay taxes and penalties of more than $850,000 over past four years, impeding collection of taxes and mail fraud. Suzanna W. Hubbell, Hubbell's wife; on April 30, 1998, indicted on eight felony charges of conspiring to violate internal revenue laws, tax evasion, impeding collection of taxes and mail fraud. Michael C. Schaufele, Hubbell's accountant; on April 30, 1998, indicted on nine felony charges of conspiring to violate internal revenue laws, tax evasion, impeding collection of taxes and mail fraud; also charged with helping prepare false tax returns. Charles C. Owen, Hubbell's lawyer; on April 30, 1998, indicted on nine felony charges of conspiring to violate internal revenue laws, tax evasion, impeding collection of taxes and mail fraud. Susan H. McDougal, On May 4, 1998 indicted on three counts of criminal contempt and obstruction of justice for failing to answer questions from Arkansas grand jury. Acquittal and Mistrial Herby Branscum Jr. and Robert M. Hill, Owners of an Arkansas bank; on Aug. 1, 1996, acquitted of four felony counts, including charges they conspired to conceal large cash withdrawals by Clinton's 1990 campaign for governor; jury deadlocked on seven other counts of conspiracy and misapplication of bank money, prompting a Federal judge to declare a mistrial; decision made on Sept. 13, 1996, not to retry. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Court Orders Fair NRA Election Date: 06 May 1998 14:46:00 -0700 It seems odd to me that the contempt charge isn't mentioned here. Both sides in this case obviously are arguing that there's is the cause of justice and the others simply "petty bickering". But you can't (effectively) make that sort of argument when a state judge holds you in contempt of court. As I understand it that's exactly what the Fezell case judge did in regards the "winning team" ad in the election issue of the magazines. All IMO. Boyd Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: VPC Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA Agenda (fwd) Date: 06 May 1998 17:07:38 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: US Newswire VPC Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA Agenda U.S. Newswire 4 May 14:34 Violence Policy Center Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA 'Far-Right' Agenda To: National Desk Contact: Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, 202-822-8200, ext. 101 WASHINGTON, May 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a Hollywood press conference announced for 10:30 a.m. PDT today, NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston -- billed in the NRA media advisory for the event as a "civil rights activist" -- is expected to attack the NBC television movie "The Long Island Incident." In response, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released the transcript and video of a December 1997 speech Heston delivered before the Free Congress Foundation in which he made inflammatory statements attacking women, gays and lesbians, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Heston, as detailed in a full-page ad in The New York Times this morning, is expected to challenge Barbra Streisand, the movie's producer, to a "one-on-one" debate about the Second Amendment. He is also expected to denounce the film, which aired last night and told the story of the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting and the subsequent campaign for the House of Representatives on a pro-gun control platform by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "Once again the NRA has revealed its extremist stripes. Will the real Charlton Heston please stand up? In Hollywood, he calls himself a 'civil rights activist.' Speaking before ultra-conservatives inside the Beltway, he talks of 'white pride.' Heston's remarks go beyond gun control, to the very heart of diversity in America." Heston's statements have been endorsed by David Duke, who on his website states, "I was astounded to read these courageous remarks by Charlton Heston. I am thankful to hear a man with such high esteem say essentially the same things for which I have reviled by the liberal media. His words should be reproduced and put into the hands of every American." Excerpts from the Heston speech follow. The full transcript and video are available from VPC. ------ Excerpts from NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston's Speech Before the Free Congress Foundation, December 1997 The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of those wise old dead white guys who invented this country. Now, some flinch when I say that. Why? It's true...they were white guys. So were most of the guys who died in Lincoln's name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a good thing, while "white pride" conjures up shaved heads and white hoods? Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated in the media as progress, while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with suspicion and ridicule? I'll tell you why: cultural warfare. Mainstream America is depending on you -- counting on you -- to draw your sword and fight for them. These people (mainstream America) have precious little time or resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it's a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other...We've reached that point in time when our national social policy originates on Oprah. I say it's time to pull the plug. Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens...Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or -- even worse -- Evangelical Christian, Midwest or Southern, or -- even worse -- rural, apparently straight, or -- even worse -- admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning or -- even worse -- NRA card-carrying, average working stiff, or -- even worse -- male working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights fundraisers...and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved. Such demands have nothing to do with equality. They're about the currency of cultural war -- money and votes -- and the Clinton camp will let anyone in the tent if there's a donkey on his hat, or a check in the mail or some yen in the fortune cookie. But you don't see many other Hollywood luminaries speaking out on this one, do you? It's not because there aren't any. It's because they can't afford the heat. They dare not speak up for fear of CNN or the IRS or SAG or the ATF or NBC or even WJC. I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear six-pointed yellow stars sewn on their chests as identity badges...So, what color star will they pin on our coats? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner yet, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive. -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 05/04 14:34 Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire ----------------------- 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. ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Will Rogers famous quotes about government (fwd) Date: 07 May 1998 13:40:52 -0500 (CDT) "No matter how much I may exaggerate it, it must have a certain amount of truth...Now rumor travels fast but it don't stay put as long as truth" "I don't make jokes, I just watch the Government and report the facts..." "We'll show the world we are prosperous, even if we have to go broke to do it." "Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, that don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous." "Things in our country run in spite of government. Not by aid of it!" "It's just got so that 90 percent of the people in this country don't give a damn. Politics ain't worrying this country one tenth as much as parking space." "We shouldn't elect a President; we should elect a magician." "If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven." "I don't care how little your country is, you got a right to run it like you want to. When the big nations quit meddling, then the world will have peace." "Now if there is one thing that we do worse than any other nation, it is try and manage somebody else's affairs." "Nobody wants to be called common people, especially common people." "Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it's not one bit better than the government we got for one third the money twenty years ago." "Liberty dont work as good in practice as it does in speeches." "The Income Tax has made more Liars out of American people than Golf has." "It's not what you pay a man but what he costs you that counts." "There is nothing as stupid as an educated man if you get him off the thing he was educated in." "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." "Our Foreign dealings are an Open Book, generally a Check Book." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Another poll, wiht less than 24 hrs left! (fwd) Date: 07 May 1998 12:34:07 PST On May 7, Bob Mueller wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "Poll Ends: 5-08-98" http://www.teleport.com/poll/poll3.cgi Let's hit this one hard, and quick! In recent years, we've seen an increase in violent shootings, many involving children and teenagers. It has been argued that the lack of gun control contributes to the problem, as teenagers find easy access to weapons. Others argue that it is the family's responsibility to raise their children and instill values in them. What do you think is the major cause of these shootings? 3705 votes as of 1400 EDT: Lack of sufficient gun control: 409 11% Lack of sufficient firearm education: 112 03% Parent's need to impress better social values on their children: 2246 60% A combination of all of the above: 129 03% It's due to other factors: 88 02% There isn't an increased problem, the media is hyping this issue: 721 20% (BTW, I rounded the % to integers) ______________________________________ Bob Mueller Second Amendment Research Network - http://www.infinet.com/~bmueller/Index.html D, 6/52 ADA Alumni Association Commander http://www.gather.com/d652ada/ [------------------------- 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: rkba-list: Hunter Ed. Budget Cuts (fwd) Date: 07 May 1998 12:35:26 PST For those of us who live in the People's Republic of Washatonia, Governor Gary "China Money" Locke, is at it again..... "On May 7, jwaldron@halcyon.com wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I received this message from a concerned hunter education instructor today. I'm passing it along for your information while I dig out further specifics to fight this. Joe Waldron <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> I am contacting you after a weekend Hunter-Education in-service training session with Tom Brown of DoFW. The situation described below is both real and immediate, and the outlook is grave indeed. With out both political and financial help, the current successful hunter education program in Washington State will become a hollow travesty, maintained simply for the purpose of securing Pittman Robertson funds for the state's coffers. Please feel free to edit, cut slice and check on the below information, and GET IT OUT TO THE MEMBERSHIP!! POST IT. PRINT IT. GET THEIR ATTENTION! This is a real back-door attack on gun and hunting rights in the state. If we cannot train young hunters in a viable safety program, it will result in a rise in hunting accidents. This will give the anti's all the clout they need to ban hunting in the state completely. I have no doubt this is a part of Locke & Co.'s agenda. With the recent (much publicized) shortfall in the Dep't Fish and Wildlife's budget, and the resultant "fix" proposed by the Locke appointed commission, Governor Locke's anti-hunting agenda is in full swing. The Hunter Education program, supposedly funded by Pittman-Robertson funds from the Federal Government, has essentially been given the axe. Money supposed to be GUARANTEED for use in the Hunter Education program under P-R are being rechanneled, and the program GUTTED. Through some legal convolutions known only to liberal anti-hunters/anti-gunners, this is apparently permitted, as the funds are to be channeled to 'habitat enhancement'. (Incidentally, P-R is also supposed to fund RANGE development & enhancement too....!) What this means, in the short and long run, is that nearly the entire permanent staff (4) within the department's Hunter Ed. program will be cut, leaving ONE person (Mik) to do the whole job. This is, of course, not feasible. The end result will be a lack of decent training for young hunters, and a resultant rise in firearms-related hunting accidents. How typical: this program, taught primarily by unpaid volunteers throughout the state, (some 700 of us) with NO FINANCIAL INTEREST OR REMUNERATION, is the one DoFW program that is demonstrably working well. Our percentage of firearms-related hunting accidents in Washington state has dropped to virtually nil, and the program has, to my knowledge, not wasted a dime in the 6 years I have been aboard as a volunteer. So, of course Locke's liberals decide it is the ideal program to cut. Cut a total of over $70,000 (fisheries education, by the way, was cut a total of $5,000 for the same period. Ever seen anyone accidentally shot with a fishing rod??). What does this mean to you? Well, for one thing, it means you will not be as safe in the woods or the duck blind. Eventually, it will result in unnessary hunting accidents, which will turn public opinion even further against hunting. And if the anti's can restrict or eliminate hunting in the state, how long do you think you will keep you firearms once this 'legitimate' purpose for them is gone? We know the 2nd ammendment " ain't about duck hunting", but how many of the public know that?? This is YOUR fight! What can you do?? Two things can be done RIGHT AWAY. First: Financial support is needed NOW for Hunter Education. If funds are donated to DoFW Hunter Education program, SPECIFICALLY EARMARKED FOR THAT PURPOSE, the Dep't cannot use them for any other program. Immediate help will keep the program healthy. Send your $$, even a single DOLLAR apiece from each menber would help. This program has been getting by on on very little for a long time. Send your donations to Dep't of Fish and Wildlife: HIUNTER EDUCATION, ATTN: TOM BROWN. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO WA. HUNTER EDUCATION PROGRAM, and note on them FOR HUNTER EDUCATION USE ONLY!!!! This program has been good to the hunters of Washington state...it's time for paybacks. Second: Storm the gates of the "Puzzle Palace" in Olympia. Call or write the Governor's office, the Wildlife commission, and your local representatives, and DEMAND that the minimal funding that was allowed so vital a program as Hunter Education be fully restored. Hunter Ed is the ONLY SINGLE state administered firearms safety program, and it has saved countless lives and mishaps. The statistics bear this out fully: the incidence of accidents prior to Hunter Ed was many times the current rate. MAKE THIS AN ISSUE!!!! Locke & Co have gutted every piece of pro-gun legislation they could..here is a chance to take the issue back with public support. This is a good and vital program, and should be fully funded. But it won't be unless YOU get out your pen and write, or get on the phone and call. We did it for 676, and we can do it for hunter education. Remember the definition of Politics: 'poli' meaning many, and 'tics' meaning little bloodsuckers....if we make enough noise about this program they will have to go suck their blood from some really bloated program, and restore Hunter Education's funding. This is a worthwhile program, and deserves both our funds and our support. Please spread this word among all gun owners and hunters....Cross post at will wherever needed. <---- End Forwarded Message ----> [------------------------- 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: Looky here at this!!!! (fwd) Date: 07 May 1998 13:49:43 PST And another one bites the dust! :-) On May 7, RHill@MICKEY.GC.WHECN.EDU wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > ---------- > From: Letters to the > President[SMTP:letters@InetGate1.Wal-Mart.Com] > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 1:13 PM > To: Hill, Roy > > Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with Wal-Mart > regarding a local fundraiser by the Missourians Against Handgun > Violence (MAHV). > > After reviewing this matter further, we have canceled the event and > it will not be rescheduled. > > We appreciate your interest. > > > Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. [------------------------- 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: Proven Solutions to ENDING School Shootings Date: 08 May 1998 06:39:59 -0400 Good interview! Tom >Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:52:45 -0500 >From: "Chris W. Stark" >Reply-To: "Chris W. Stark" >To: email-subscribers@JPFO.org >Subject: Proven Solutions to ENDING School Shootings >X-Mailer: Chris W. Stark's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] > > ****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 > > 05/09/98 > -------- > > >EDITOR'S NOTE: This exclusive interview, copyright (c) JPFO, puts >to rest the ongoing debate of how to deal with the ever increasing >violence and bloodshed in America's schools, by showing proven >solutions (not just theories) to the problem. Rest assured the >answer is not in more "gun control", as the gun prohibitionists >would want to brainwash America into believing. In fact, the >problem IS gun control. > >The initial interview prints out to about 4 pages, so we felt it >would be better for you to go to the actual web site to read this >important interview with Dr. David Th. Schiller. If at all possible, >do not put off reading this all important interview. > > >The interview is found at: http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm > > >If you have no way in viewing this interview by a web browser, and >you wish to read it, I will be glad to e-mail you the interview upon >your request. Remember, it is about 4 pages long when printed out. > > >Be well, > >**************************************************************** >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". >**************************************************************** > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: OKC-Key Seeks Congressional Bomb Hearing (fwd) Date: 08 May 1998 09:06:37 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: Daily Oklahoman Legislator Seeks Congressional Bomb Hearing 05/07/1998 By Diana Baldwin and Judy Kuhlman Staff Writers State Rep. Charles Key and six members of his independent investigation committee will be in Washington, D.C., on Friday to present their views about what happened in the Oklahoma City bombing. Key, R-Oklahoma City, is lobbying for a congressional hearing on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. The explosion resulted in 168 deaths. The group is scheduled to meet Friday with Paul Marcone, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Jim Traficant, D-Ohio. "Congressman Traficant has always had an interest in the Oklahoma City bombing and issues surrounding the security of federal buildings," Marcone said. "I've spoken with Representative Key on several occasions. We are just going to sit down and listen to what he has to say and share information with him." Traficant is the ranking minority member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a subcommittee that oversees the federal General Services Administration, which governs all federal buildings. Key said he has no appointments with members of the Oklahoma congressional delegation or anyone else. However, he said he hopes to schedule other meetings while he is in Washington. Key said he and his Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee have a list of 75 people they want to meet with in Washington. The state lawmaker has been critical of the federal government since shortly after the April 19, 1995, bombing. He helped spearhead the petition drive that called for a grand jury investigation. Grand jurors have been meeting in secret since June 30, 1997. They have heard testimony from 107 witnesses, many of whom Key suggested. Their findings have not been made public. Meanwhile, three members of the Oklahoma congressional delegation believe it is too early to begin soliciting a Washington investigation with a county grand jury still seated. None of the six Oklahoma delegates or their aides have talked to Key about a congressional probe, they told The Oklahoman. U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne, whose district includes the site where the federal building stood, said he and Key have never discussed a congressional hearing. "We should, I believe, before we take any additional steps, wait until that grand jury process is completed, and they've made their reports or offer their findings. That's following procedures," Lucas said. U.S. Rep. Steve Largent, R-Tulsa, and Sen. Don Nickles, R-Ponca City, agree. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said he is confident law enforcement officials and prosecutors will follow additional leads. "Unless a person has personal knowledge of useful information, it is probably best that they stay out of it," Inhofe said. "This is what I have tried to do." Key has been funding his independent investigation with private donations. So far, more than $135,000 have been collected to operate Key's Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. Other committee members making the trip are Jim Grace, V.Z. Lawton, George Wallace, Cate McCauley and Dale Phillips. Roger Charles, a freelance reporter from Alexandria, Va., and committee member, will assist the group, Key said. Key said he will return to Oklahoma on Sunday. The Oklahoma House of Representatives is in session throughout the month. At least three other members of the group will remain in Washington, D.C., until Wednesday or Thursday, the lawmaker said. Expenses for Key and the committee members will be paid with private donations. The lawmaker said he did not know how much the trip would cost. ----------------------- 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. ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: Another Botched Police Raid (fwd) Date: 08 May 1998 08:47:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: New York Times May 8, 1998 Another Police Raid on a Home Yields No Drugs, but Much Trauma By MICHAEL COOPER NEW YORK -- Police officers broke down the door of a Brooklyn apartment, guns drawn, tossed a stun grenade into the front hall and handcuffed everyone inside, including a mentally retarded 18-year-old girl who was taking a shower. They were looking for guns and drugs. They found only a terrified family. "I thought America was invaded, that some force, a foreign force, came to kill us," said Basil Shorter, 62, a retired baker, describing the police raid of his Crown Heights apartment May 1 that turned his family's morning routine into a harrowing confrontation. "My family was helpless. I was helpless." Police officials insisted Thursday that the officers had done nothing wrong and that the raid was done by the book. They said a confidential informant told them that drugs and guns were being sold from the Shorter apartment and from another apartment on the third floor of the building, at 1602 Union St., and that a judge authorized and signed a search warrant for both. A gun and small amounts of drugs were found in the third floor apartment, they said. But the raid on the Shorter residence was the fourth in a series of high-profile cases since late February in which search warrants either failed to yield any contraband or were carried out at the wrong location. As drug dealing has increasingly moved inside from the streets, narcotics officers have come to rely more and more on the search warrants in their efforts to stamp out the drug trade. Critics contend that some no-knock search warrants -- in which officials rely on the word of a confidential informant to obtain the warrant -- violate people's constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The warrants authorize police to break down doors with battering rams in their search for drugs. And they worry that cases like the Shorters', in which a family is traumatized but no drugs are found, could make the city liable to pay millions of dollars in damages in civil suits. "These types of aggressive actions hold the potential for enormous recoveries from the city from future administrations," said City Councilman Sheldon Leffler, who chairs the council's public safety committee. "It's the next regime that will have to pay the piper. I think there is a need for tightening up the procedures." The Shorter family retained a lawyer, Harvey Weitz, who has won a number of multi-million dollar jury verdicts in the past. Weitz said Thursday that he would sue for $200 million in damages. "Something's wrong with police procedures if families like the Shorters go through this kind of terror," Weitz said. According to police and the Shorters, the raid took place at 6:15 a.m. Shorter had just bathed and his daughter Phebi, 18, was in the shower. His wife, Cecelia, 47, a home health attendant, and younger daughter, Isis, 14, were also in the apartment. Suddenly, the door burst open and police threw in a stun grenade, which exploded. Police use such a grenade to disorient the apartment's occupants. In this case, their informant had told them that the apartment was watched by armed guards 24 hours a day. Mrs. Shorter said that she was worried that Phebi, who is mentally retarded, would misunderstand orders and get shot. "I said, 'She's mentally retarded, please don't shoot, please don't shoot,' Mrs. Shorter recalled Thursday. She said police covered Phebi with a robe and handcuffed her but did not heed her warning that her daughter was menstruating and needed a sanitary pad. She said they only gave her one after she was visibly bleeding. At 7:30, police freed the Shorters when they did not find any drugs. They left the apartment and asked the building superintendent to fix the door at police expense. "This is the fourth case in recent months that I know of," Weitz said. "And I've never once seen or heard anything from the City of New York which says we're going to re-evaluate how we execute these warrants." The other recent cases include: -- On Feb. 27 police raided the Bronx apartment of Ellis Elliot. Elliot, who thought he was being robbed when his door was opened, took a gun and fired a shot. Police then sprayed at least 26 bullets into the room. No one was injured; no drugs were found. Officials later said that that they had hit the wrong apartment. -- That same day the police broke down the door of another Bronx apartment only to find an 18-year-old woman who was eight months pregnant napping with her two children. No drugs were found. Police officials later said that they had hit the right apartment, but believed the drugs had been moved. -- On March 18 the police raided the apartment of a family in Brooklyn only to find a grandmother watching television with her daughter and grandson. Police officials later acknowledged that it was the wrong apartment: the officers had apparently misunderstood the directions from undercover detectives. Chief Martin O'Boyle of the Organized Crime Control Bureau defended both police procedures and the raid on the Shorter house. He said that as drug dealing has moved indoors, his bureau has increased the number of search warrants it executes, to 2,900 last year. In the past, he said, a year in which 500 warrants were executed was considered busy. And in about 85 percent of the raids last year, O'Boyle said, police found what they were looking for. In some cases, the police send undercover officers to make what they call "controlled buys" after receiving tips about drug and gun selling from confidential informants. They did not in this case. They did follow other procedures, though, including having a sergeant look at the apartment doors with the informant to make sure they were the correct addresses. Talking of the information supplied by the confidential informant in the Shorter case, O'Boyle said: "What we believe at this point is that the information was good. Why would our source give us bad information on one apartment and good information on the second apartment in the same building?" And privately, several investigators said that drug dealers sometimes figur out ways to operate from the apartments of the most unlikely people, sometimes without their knowledge. Shorter, who was born in Jamaica and lived in England before he became a U.S. citizen, wept as he recalled the sense of shame of seeing his neighbors watch a police raid in his home. "I was so embarrassed," he said. "Everyone passed in the hallway, looking at my house." His daughter Phebi, who talked and sang to herself during the news conference, looked up at her father and said, "He's crying." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ----------------------- 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. ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: Thuggery (fwd) Date: 08 May 1998 14:58:27 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From the Wall Street Journal Friday, March 27th 1998 op-ed President Clinton is lucky most Americans lack the time to don hip waders and trudge through the hundreds of pages of sworn testimony in the Paula Jones case. They'd learn the case is about sex only in the sens that "Titanic" is about an iceberg. What's really scary is the progression from sex to thuggery. We don't use that word lightly. The statements made under oath in the case describe a President presiding over a culture that wields rewards and threats like the mob, at least in effect if not in degree. Those who play ball get jobs, but those who break with the family find themselves.. threatened and their reputations shredded. Take Kathleen Willey. When she kept quiet about whatever happened to her in the Oval Office, she got a paying White House job, a USO board seat and exotic trips with official delegations for which she was unqualified. But once she said she'd been groped by Mr. Clinton, she became the target of nasty stories. She is now portrayed as a gold-digger who fawned on the President, played a part in sleazy land deals with her late husband and lied about a pregnancy while sleeping with a British soccer coach. Never mind that she told her story on TV for free, has never been implicated in her husband's financial troubles and that the source of the soccer tale is her enemy. "They're trying to make me look like a wacko," Ms. Willey now says. The Willey treatment fits the patten that shows up throughout the Paula Jones documents. For example, Arkansas state troper supervisor Buddy Young got a nice FEMA post in Dallas under Mr. Clinton. Mr. Young was once caught on videotape discussing with Bruce Lindsey, the President's confidant/fixer, how to respond to charges by other state troopers that they'd escorted Mr. Clinton to female liaisons. This is the same Buddy Young who, according to trooper Larry Patterson's deposition under oath, said, "Larry, if you know What's good for you, if you know what's if you know what's best for you and your family, keep your mouth shut." A second trooper, Roger Perry, also says under penalty of perjury that Mr. Young told him, "Is it true what I hear that you're going to go public with sexual stories on Bill Clinton' And I said, 'Well, Buddy, we hadn't made our mind up yet.' I said. 'I don't know if I will or not.' Then he said, 'Well, let me give you some advice. If you do, you will be destroyed, and I represent the president of the United States,' exactly what the man said." A third trooper, L.D. Brown, adds under oath that he was threatened by Clinton friend Skip Rutherford: "He said, .. 'Well, L.D., you know, you have to go to sleep at night, lay your head down on the pillow and live with yourself, and you don't want your credit card receipts all over the front page, do you?' And I really - you know, that upset me. I took that as not such a veiled threat." These are of course only allegations, though given under oath. Mr. Young denies them, while Mr. Rutherford admits having "educated" Mr. Brown about media attention, but denies pressuring him to keep quiet. THey also eerily jibe with the stories of the women who went public about Mr. Clinton. Gennifer Flowers now says under oath that she was told to deny, deny, deny. Mr. Clinton now admits under oath to at least one sexual meeting with Ms. Flowers - something he denied when not under oath in 1992. More ominously, Dolly Kyle Browning says under pain of perjury that she was warned by her own brother, who worked on the 1992 Clinton campaign, that "We will destroy you." In fear, she says, she agreed with Mr. Clinton, "through the intermediaries" of her brother and Bruce Lindsey, "not to tell the true story about our relationship if he would not tell any lies about me." This is the same Bruce Lindsey who is now invoking exectuive privilege so he needn't disclose what he knows under oath. Another woman, a former Miss Arkansas named Elizabeth Ward, is said by friend Judy Stokes under oath to have broken down in tears talking about Mr. Clinton's unwanted advances against her. Ms. Ward is reportedly abroad out of subpoena-range. Linda Tripp says under oath she was advised by Monica Lewinsky to "deny everything". And Ms. Willey has said under oath that Democratic operative and Clinton friend Nathan Landow talked to her about her testimony. Newspaper accounts say he urged her to keep quiet. There's more. One of the Jones documents is a sworn affidavit from a John B. Thompson, recounting what he was... told by a Samuel Jones (no relation), of Mr. Clinton's former Little Rock law firm: "He said that his job was to see what the women had to say, to determine whether they were a 'threat' to Governor Clinton, and 'to do whatever it takes to make sure that they did not say anything or do anything to prove that Clinton is a womanizer'" Now, maybe one or more of these people are lying. Maybe one or more are willing to risk perjury and potential prison to pursue a personal vendetta angainst Bill Clinton. But are all of them lying? Are they all part of the same conspiracy? What's frightening is that their stories fit the pattern of the Clinton years - the pattern of a Presidency that tried to ruin Billy Dale merely to control the White House travel office. He was fired, then indicted: a jury acquitted him in two hours. This is the same Presidency that rummaged through 800 FBI files. And the same Presidency whose Senate defenders searched through "deleted" pesonal computer files to smear the motives of Jean Lewis, the federal investigator who named the Clintons as witnesses in Whitewater criminal referrals. This is ugly stuff, if even half of it is true. It shows how character matters. Reckless sex leads to threats and intimidation, and abuse of the powers of high office ... is not far behind. ********************************************** 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: Long Island Advertizers Date: 09 May 1998 12:10:42 PST On May 9, nfp3@nw.opp.psu.edu wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Anyone wanting to contact MCI about "LONG ISLAND INCIDENT" advertising here is a source. May not be where they want you to call or email but hey that's life. Neal MCI Media Relations Reporters with the news media may contact MCI's Corporate News Bureau at 1-800-644-NEWS or 202-887-3000. We may also be reached via e-mail at news-mci@mci.com *************************************************************************** * Or else how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, * *unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.* * JESUS CHRIST---Matthew 12:29 * *************************************************************************** The more people are dependent upon government, the more controlled they are...Madeline Albright 3/20/98 [------------------------- 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: Viagra Control (fwd) Date: 09 May 1998 12:12:26 PST On May 9, BludyRed wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This appeared in my mailbox and I thought I would share it with the list. I have no idea of the original source. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------- VIAGRA, THUMBS UP / OR DOWN? Better get Sara Broady, and Handheld Control, Inc. to work on this one right away! If there is anything more dangerous on our streets than the dreaded firearm, it has to be the increased number of concealed erections that will be frequenting public places. In addition to this, unlike firearm crimes, penal crimes will be more prevalent in rural areas, endangering ungulates and other domestics as well as the human population. Next at risk is the suburbs, with the lowest percentages of occurrences in the urban areas. Sara, here is what I would like to suggest: First, anyone requesting a prescription to this vile drug should appear before a county board to plead their case for a need to indulge. Second, there should be a minimum of a fifteen day waiting period, not only as a cooling off period, but in order to perform a background check to determine if the applicant has ever been accused of / or convicted of harassment, molestation or rape. Any other possible sex related deviations that you can come up with, may be included. Third, if nothing detrimental is uncovered in this evaluation, and the prescriber can meet the requirements of the research cost, $100.00, and the minimum age of 55, and it has not been a 'Bad Hair Day' for the board, he shall be issued a probationary slip. With this he may obtain a limited dosage prescription from his family doctor in order to enable him to engage in the required training processes. Considering him to meet all of the stipulations, and still remaining an up- standing citizen, he will be allowed to purchase a permit for only an additional $100.00, which must be renewed annually. If these restrictions do not control availability of this vile drug, I am sure that Mr. Clinton will come up with a solution for the Government to save us, whether it will be Mid-Night Ball Banging, or putting an extra 100,000 prostitutes on the streets. The latter can only be considered as a valid proposal, if Clinton does not reserve more than a dozen for personal consumption. If this drug proves effective there are even more benefits than are readily apparent. I understand that the 'World Wildlife Fund' is presently researching the impact that the use of this drug will have on saving endangered wildlife such as the White Rhino and the Bengal Tiger, whose parts have previously been so much in demand as aphrodisiacs around the world. Possibly when a monetary value for this savings has been established, both 'Handheld Control, Inc.' and the DNC will be in for a meaningful contribution. [------------------------- 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: United Nations -- gun control on agenda of G-8 summit (fwd) (fwd) Date: 10 May 1998 02:37:32 PST On May 9, Tom Walls wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] For Immediate Release May 6/98 The United Nations, in cooperation with various NGOs and governments, has managed to get gun control on the agenda of the G-8 summit beginning Friday, May 8/98. Canada (Lloyd Axworthy) will take the lead role in this initiative to have all G-8 countries enter BINDING agreements on gun control. Call, e-mail, fax or write your respective MPs NOW!! [------------------------- 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: "When They Come for You" Date: 10 May 1998 15:10:00 -0400 >Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:40:33 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: "When They Come for You" > >Tuesday, May 5, 1998 >Copyright =A9 1998 The New York Times >--------------------------------------------- >"When They Come for You" > >By Fulton Huxtable > >The immoral and reckless indifference, of so much of the American >public, to statists obliterating freedom in one area after another >brings to mind the quote attributed to Protestant minister Martin >Neimoller, who reflected upon Germany=92s fall to the Nazis:=20 > >"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn=92t speak up >because I wasn=92t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn=92t >speak up because I wasn=92t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, >and I didn=92t speak up because I wasn=92t a trade unionist. Then they came >for Catholics, and I didn=92t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then >they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." > >If you are like most Americans, you didn=92t bother to notice that when >statists came for the owners of "public buildings," violating the >property rights of these owners, that, in principle, your rights were >undermined, undermining what you may do in your own home. You didn=92t >speak out because you are not an owner of one of these "public >buildings."=20 > >When statists came for the owners of tobacco companies, infringing on >their right of ownership and restricting their freedom of speech, you >didn=92t speak out because you are not one of the owners of a tobacco >company or you are not a smoker or you consider smoking to be an evil >which must be wiped out at all costs, even at the cost of your freedom, >your freedom to follow your own judgment.=20 > >When they persecuted and imprisoned innocent individuals for "abuse," >you didn=92t speak out because you were not the one being persecuted. When >they imprisoned those individuals for disturbing the "wetlands," you >said nothing because you thought it would never affect you, oblivious to >the fact that your backyard is a "wetland."=20 > >When they searched, without warrant, the private property of business >owners, you said nothing because these were only business owners and you >are not a business owner. When they seized property without due process, >you said nothing because it wasn=92t your property being seized, even >though it could be and will be tomorrow.=20 > >When they imposed arbitrary fines, you said nothing because you were not >the one victimized.=20 > >When they kicked in the door of the home of someone suspected of drug >possession and killed the innocent owner, you said nothing because your >loved one was not the one killed and because you believe anything goes >when it comes to fighting drug use.=20 > >When they drove an innocent man to suicide in their attempt to collect >taxes never owed them, you said nothing because the victim was not >someone you knew and valued.=20 > >When they bullied television network executives into accepting a ratings >system, you said nothing because you are not an owner of a television >station.=20 > >When they, in the name of children, came for the producers of children=92s >television programs, making it criminal to express certain ideas, you >did not speak out because you believe anything can be sacrificed in the >name of children, even though these children will not be free when they >become adults.=20 > >When they suspended the right to trial by jury for accused "Deadbeat >Dads," you said nothing because you are not a deadbeat dad.=20 > >When they passed legislation further regulating doctors, Even though you >oppose socialized medicine, you said nothing, dismissing it as only a >"small step," perhaps hoping it would not affect you in your lifetime, >hoping that "somehow" it would not result in socialized medicine.=20 > >When they got you to accept the idea that your money is not yours, that >they may forcibly take "your" money and dictate to you how much you may >keep for your own needs, you said nothing because you consider taxation >to be a necessary evil. When they came for the online news >organizations, you said nothing because you are not a user of online >services.=20 > >And when they and their evil finally come for you=97and they will, if >America continues down this road to hell, will there be enough left who >will care about your plight, will there be anyone left to speak out for >you, to defend you? You already know the answer: there won=92t be, if this >country continues to sink into the cesspool of statism, if most >Americans continue to maintain an indifferent silence about freedom=92s >decline. And if you are one of those who have said nothing, then your >silence and the logic of your bad premises will finally avenge >themselves on you in practice=85when they finally come for >you [end] >--=20 >****************************************************************** > 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 Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) Date: 10 May 1998 15:13:31 -0400 >Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 09:01:24 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > >There are two basic issues involved with the "missing 13th amendment". The >first is how many states were required to ratify it, and was it ratified by a >sufficient number. The second is what is included in "titles of nobility". > >If 3/4 of the states admitted at the time the amendment is proposed are >sufficient to ratify the amendment, then it was probably ratified, although >without the evidence of legislative action in the Virginia legislature we can >probably never prove it. > >However, some reflection should satisfy the scholar that the number of states >required to ratify an amendment must increase as the number of states admitted >increases. On this principle, the missing 13th was almost certainly not >ratified. If we do not grant the principle, then we could have the absurd >situation of the second of the original proposed 12 amendments, proposed in >1789, and ratified by 3/4 of the then admitted states in 1992, being >ratifiable 203 years later by only 10 of the original 13 states, but binding >on all the rest of them, without their consent. > >The second question concerns what is "nobility", and whether a mere "title" is >the operative term, or whether the constitution, and the missing 13th, >prohibits the substance of "nobility" even if no "title" is involved. > >First, let us dispose of the notion that "lawyer" or "attorney" or "esquire" >is a "title of nobility". It is not, simply considered as a title. Considering >that most of the members of Congress in 1810, when the missing 13th was >adopted by Congress, were themselves lawyers, it is hardly likely that they >intended to terminate their citizenship or deny themselves the right to hold >office. "Esquire" is an affectation by lawyers, and was never more than a >title of "dignity", not "nobility". > >On the other hand, a case can be made that what was of concern to the Framers >was the substance of nobility and not the mere title of it. If so, then any >class of persons on whom is conferred the privileges and immunities associated >with nobility constitutes the substance of what the Constitution prohibits, >and that therefore what is prohibited is the conferring of such privileges and >immunities on anyone. > >Now, clearly the conferring of some privileges and immunities is permissible. >It is part of the normal functions of government. So the question is, what >kinds or degrees of privilege or immunity is contemplated as prohibited. >Clearly, it is the privilege to abuse the rights of others, combined with the >immunity from prosecution or civil claims therefor. > >Can we identify any class of person who might fit that definition? >Unfortunately, it appears that we can. "Law enforcement official" is beginning >to cross the line into that realm, not as a matter law, perhaps, but as a >matter of established practice. > >--Jon > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/10/98 Time: 09:01:25 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fw: ComLaw> Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment Date: 10 May 1998 15:18:53 -0400 >Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:13:29 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Fw: ComLaw> Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > > > >------------------------ > From: Gary Hunt > Subject: ComLaw> Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) > Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 10:37:28 -0700 > > >This response by Jon Roland was to a recent post to the list. It was >posted on another list and is being responded to at both lists. Gary >Hunt, Outpost of Freedom > >Jon Roland wrote: >> >> There are two basic issues involved with the "missing 13th amendment". The >> first is how many states were required to ratify it, and was it ratified by >a >> sufficient number. The second is what is included in "titles of nobility". > >History bears out the original intent and application being such. see >http:///www/illusions.com/opf/HH02.htm >> >> If 3/4 of the states admitted at the time the amendment is proposed are >> sufficient to ratify the amendment, then it was probably ratified, although >> without the evidence of legislative action in the Virginia legislature we >can >> probably never prove it. > > This depends upon what you deem "proof". For someone to say, now, that >publication (found, of all those old law books) by so many could >possibly have been in error, is ludicrous. As far as Virginia, her own >actions, in the absence of the records of the period, should suffice. >James Monroe sent a letter to South Carolina and Virginia asking whether >they had ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment. South Carolina >responded by that she had not ratified. Virginia, on the other hand, >responded indirectly by publishing the Titles of Nobility Amendment in >"Acts passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- >1819". > Now, in today's understanding (misunderstanding) of the relationship >of the federal to the state, and vise versa, we would think that there >was an obligation to notify the federal of ratification or refusal. >Remember, however, that there was disdain for federal authority in most >states in 1819. So, what proscribed act would be necessary? From a May >17, 1994 report from the National Archives to "NN", in response to an >oral request, "The Acting Archivist has no authority to determine, as a >matter of law, whether any amendment, including the Titles of Nobility >amendment, is actually a part of the Constitution." There is no function >of federal government which has the authority to rule on such matters. >Instead, it is left to the States, themselves, to accept ratification -- >which they did until well after the later stages of life or death of >those involved in its ratification. >> >> However, some reflection should satisfy the scholar that the number of states >> required to ratify an amendment must increase as the number of states admitted >> increases. On this principle, the missing 13th was almost certainly not >> ratified. If we do not grant the principle, then we could have the absurd >> situation of the second of the original proposed 12 amendments, proposed in >> 1789, and ratified by 3/4 of the then admitted states in 1992, being >> ratifiable 203 years later by only 10 of the original 13 states, but binding >> on all the rest of them, without their consent. > >Again, I refer you to http://www.illusions.com/opf/HH02.htm. Until the >Civil War, there is no doubt as to the proper application of the >Constitutional provision. Not being a participant in the "submittal" >portion of the process denied a state the authority to participate in >the ratification process. Now, after the Civil War, and after the >Congressional Act in 1988 which granted the Office of Legal Counsel >(OLC) the authority to make such determinations. > >> >> The second question concerns what is "nobility", and whether a mere "title" is >> the operative term, or whether the constitution, and the missing 13th, >> prohibits the substance of "nobility" even if no "title" is involved. > >Similar to the question of who decides if something has been ratified, >we are posed with: What does Titles of Nobility" Mean. This is a >difficult question, since the application of the meaning has been lost >with disuse. Is it possible that Section I, article 9 & 10 prohibitions >against the federal or state government's granting Titles of Nobility >was out of fear that the legislatures of either would "crown" someone a >prince, or even king? Again, we must look top the past to find what was >intended by the phrase. > > The Alabama Supreme Court gives us the best indication in an 1872 >case. The Court, in "Horst v. Moses", 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave >the following description of a title of nobility: > >To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to >whom privileges are granted at the >expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and >the objection to it rises more from >the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title >or order. These components are >forbidden separately in the terms "privilege", "honor", and >"emoluments", as they are collectively in the >term "title of nobility". The prohibition is not affected by any >consideration paid or rendered for the grant. > > >> >> First, let us dispose of the notion that "lawyer" or "attorney" or "esquire" >> is a "title of nobility". It is not, simply considered as a title. Considering >> that most of the members of Congress in 1810, when the missing 13th was >> adopted by Congress, were themselves lawyers, it is hardly likely that they >> intended to terminate their citizenship or deny themselves the right to hold >> office. "Esquire" is an affectation by lawyers, and was never more than a >> title of "dignity", not "nobility". > >Lawyer or Attorney is not the issue. There is a very string distinction >between lawyer (which I am often referred to as being) and Bar attorney. >Let's just consider why the Supreme Courts of all of the states I have >looked in to DO NOT license lawyers. They can't under Articles 9 & 10, >mentioned above. Instead, and to circumvent the Constitution, they >recognize a private association, known as the Bar Association, to grant >membership to those who meet their (the Bar association) requirements >for membership -- and discipline, to make the determination as to who >might represent another before the courts of the government. > >Now, Jon, you made a statement that many of those "most" members of >Congress were lawyers. First, I think you err, unless you consider that >they were lawyers secondary to the primary vocation. Second, they were >not members of the "Bar", rather, they were "Lettered in the Law" -- a >far cry from the current state of affairs. Consider, also, that it was >considered improper to receive payment for representing an accused in >court. > >> >> On the other hand, a case can be made that what was of concern to the Framers >> was the substance of nobility and not the mere title of it. If so, then any >> class of persons on whom is conferred the privileges and immunities associated >> with nobility constitutes the substance of what the Constitution prohibits, >> and that therefore what is prohibited is the conferring of such privileges and >> immunities on anyone. >> >> Now, clearly the conferring of some privileges and immunities is permissible. >> It is part of the normal functions of government. So the question is, what >> kinds or degrees of privilege or immunity is contemplated as prohibited. >> Clearly, it is the privilege to abuse the rights of others, combined with the >> immunity from prosecution or civil claims therefor. >> >> Can we identify any class of person who might fit that definition? >> Unfortunately, it appears that we can. "Law enforcement official" is beginning >> to cross the line into that realm, not as a matter law, perhaps, but as a >> matter of established practice. > >There is no doubt the "law enforcement officers" (LEO) and even their >dogs, have become a privileged class which would be prohibited under the >Amendment. Why would the killing of an LEO (prince, etc.) provide for >capital punishment when the killing of a "People" (serf or subject) >would not, under the same circumstances? This is not the extent of >Titles, but is sufficient to begin to understand what the framers were >concerned with. > > >-- >Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom mailto:opf@illusions.com >http://www.illusions.com/opf & http://www.committee.org > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/10/98 Time: 11:13:29 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) Date: 10 May 1998 15:23:24 -0400 >Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:18:45 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Re: Some thoughts on the Thirteenth Amendment (fwd) >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > > > >------------------------ > From: Gary Hunt > >> Again, I refer you to http://www.illusions.com/opf/HH02.htm. Until the >> Civil War, there is no doubt as to the proper application of the >> Constitutional provision. Not being a participant in the "submittal" >> portion of the process denied a state the authority to participate in >> the ratification process. Now, after the Civil War, and after the >> Congressional Act in 1988 which granted the Office of Legal Counsel >> (OLC) the authority to make such determinations. > >One has to ask what the Founders would have understood on this question if it >had been brought up. They clearly did not anticipate that the number of states >might change between proposal and ratification. Early practice might have >simply been an accident rather than a positive position. When a new state is >admitted into the Union it constructively "receives" all the national >legislation adopted up to the date of admission, and that would include >pending amendments, without the need for a special submittal procedure. In >parliamentary procedure, if the number of members on the floor changes between >the time a motion is made and it is voted on, it is the number present and >voting at the time the vote is called that determines the decision, and this >would apply even if abstensions are counted as nays, which is what happens in >the ratification process. Likewise, if the number present and voting changes >during a roll call vote, where members absent when called have the right to >have their votes heard upon their arrival, it is the number present at the >moment the deciding vote is cast that determines the number of votes needed to >decide. > >> Let's just consider why the Supreme Courts of all of the states I have >> looked in to DO NOT license lawyers. They can't under Articles 9 & 10, >> mentioned above. Instead, and to circumvent the Constitution, they >> recognize a private association, known as the Bar Association, to grant >> membership to those who meet their (the Bar association) requirements >> for membership -- and discipline, to make the determination as to who >> might represent another before the courts of the government. > >Historically, the role of state bars to license and discipline their members >seems to have arisen not because of any constitutional prohibition, but >because laywers did not want to be regulated by non-lawyers, and had the >political clout to avoid it. > >And it appears that in some states lawyers are not licensed or disciplined by >their state bars, but by their supreme courts. In California there is a move >to remove the state bar from that role. > >Nor is it quite true that only lawyers can represent other persons in court. >In federal court, and in the small claims courts of Texas and some other >states, corporations can be represented by designated officers, and >historically, in criminal cases the state has sometimes been represented, as >prosecutor, by a law enforcement officer who is not a lawyer, and this >sometimes still occurs in misdemeanor cases in some states. Texas provides for >the appointment of special "pro tempore" prosecutors in criminal cases, who >could in principle be non-lawyers. > >> There is no doubt the "law enforcement officers" (LEO) and even their >> dogs, have become a privileged class which would be prohibited under the >> Amendment. Why would the killing of an LEO (prince, etc.) provide for >> capital punishment when the killing of a "People" (serf or subject) >> would not, under the same circumstances? This is not the extent of >> Titles, but is sufficient to begin to understand what the framers were >> concerned with. > >I include under "law enforcement officer" judges and prosecutors, not just >policemen. We should also include "federal agent", although they are not >officers. > >I submit that we need to raise the public awareness of government officials or >agents acquiring de facto "nobility" status, and incite protest of it. > >--Jon > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/10/98 Time: 11:18:45 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=================================================================== > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FLC 17 - Nothing Original against the War on Drugs (fwd) Date: 10 May 1998 15:38:13 PST Some interesting thoughts on the Drug Situation from Britain's Arch Libertarian..... On May 10, Sean Gabb wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Free Life Commentary Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number Seventeen Sunday, 10 May 1998, 2:26am ========================== "Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign" (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) ========================== Nothing New, but Still Worth Sending Out; Another 1400 Words Against Drug Prohibition by Sean Gabb I notice I have not written about drugs for several years. There is nothing in the news that prompts me to write about them now. I simply feel inclined to see how well I can express what has become a huge argument in a small number of words. And so here are my thoughts on why the sale and use of recreational drugs ought not to be illegal. Let us begin with the libertarian argument. People should be regarded as having the right to do with themselves as they please. This necessarily includes the right to do things that others think stupid or distasteful or immoral. If I want to, I have the right to join an odd religious group, and give it all my wealth; to have tattoos put all over my body, and to have parts of my body pierced in artistic ways; to devote myself to the poor in Africa; to be hung up on hooks and be flogged within an inch of my life by someone wearing a leather mask; and of course, to consume whatever mood-altering substances take my fancy. No one else automatically has the right to interfere with my choices. If you think I am doing wrong, you can persuade me. You can get down on your knees and beseech me to better behaviour. You can threaten me with exclusion from your company and that of your friends. Beyond that, you have no right to go any further, unless you can prove that what I am doing involves the use of force or fraud against another person, or that it is the sort of act - like selling defence plans to an enemy in arms - that threatens the dissolution of the entire community. Taking one's own drugs in consenting company is not an act of the first kind - it causes no one else the sort of harm against which they can legitimately demand protection. Nor is it an act of the second kind. We are told endlessly that drugs are a danger to social stability - that they lead to crime and degradation and so forth. There is no evidence for this claim. The British past provides a compelling example. Until 1920, drug use was uncontrolled. Between 1827 and 1859, British opium consumption rose from 17,000lb to 61,000lb. Workmen mixed it in their beer. Gladstone took it in his coffee before speaking. Scott wrote The Bride of Lammermoor under its influence. Dickens and Wilkie Collins were both heavy users. Cannabis and heroin were openly on sale. There was no social collapse. There were few deaths from taking drugs. Most deaths involving opium were individual accidents, and even these were negligible - excluding suicides, 104 in 1868 and thereafter to 1901 an annual average of 95. Hardly anyone even recognised that a problem might exist. The claim that drugs are bad for a society is a lie. The truth is the opposite. It is the criminalisation of drugs that is bad. All the ills that are now blamed on the availability of drugs is more accurately to be blamed on the illegality of drugs. When drugs are illegal, only criminals will supply them. And when criminals are allowed to dominate an entire market, they will be able - indeed required - to form extended, permanent structures of criminality that could never otherwise exist. They will then make drugs both expensive and dirty. They will be expensive because bribes, transport inefficiencies, rewards of special risk, and so forth, all raise the costs of bringing drugs to market. Therefore much of the begging, prostitution and street crime that inconvenience Western cities. As many as two-thirds of American muggings may be to finance drug-use. They will be dirty because illegal markets lack the usual safeguards of quality. When a can of beer is stamped "8 per cent alcohol by volume", this does not mean anything between 0.5 and 30 per cent. Nor will caustic soda be used to make it fizzy. Brewers have too much to lose by poisoning or defrauding customers. Drug dealers can afford to be less particular. Therefore frequent overdosing. Therefore poisonous additives. Therefore, the frequent transmission of aids even today by the sharing of dirty needles. Moving from the costs of the crime resulting from illegality, we come to the costs of enforcement. These also are massive. In the first place, the Police need to become a virtual Gestapo if they are to try enforcing laws that create no victim willing to complain and help in any investigation. They need powers to stop and search people and to search private homes that would never be necessary to stop things like burglary and murder. They need to get involved in entrapment schemes. They are exposed to offers of bribes frequently too large to be turned away. In one way or another, the War on Drugs leads to the corruption of every enforcement agency sent into battle. And that War cannot be won. The British Customs and Excise have no land border to worry about. They can track every boat and aeroplane that enters British territory. They have far wider powers of investigation than the regular Police. Even so, they themselves estimate that they stop less than three per cent of the drugs that are smuggled into the United Kingdom every year. In the second place, we have the war on money laundering. since it is impossible to stop the import and sale of the drugs, attention has switched in recent years to stopping the profits of the trade from being enjoyed. The idea now is to confiscate these profits and use them for further investigations. However, before the money can be taken, it must be found. This requires a tight surveillance and control over all financial transactions. Because any one of us might be a drug dealer trying to launder dirty money, we must all provide endless documentation when we open bank accounts. We are not allowed to pay in large amounts of cash - presently more than 20,000 - without facing an inquisition from the bank clerks. Our banking details are open to official inspection virtually on demand. Just as with drugs, the war on money laundering is also a war on freedom. In this case, it frees the authorities from the requirements of due process. The confiscations of alleged drug money are increasingly made without any pretence of a trial. In America, civil asset forfeiture, has become legalised theft of the plainest kind. In Britain, we are moving slowly towards a similar breach of Common Law rights. Moreover, the fact that our financial transactions can now be monitored gives the authorities an entirely new power over us. Its means of exercise are not yet in place. But we are moving fast into a world where all our purchases can be stored in a database. All of this knowledge is collected for commercial reasons - loyalty cards, for example, to let a supermarket know whether to offer us a discount on a certain brand of dog food. It can also be commandeered by the State and added to our police or medical records. We can try to avoid this surveillance by using cash. But there are experiments in both Britain and America to see how anonymous cash can be replaced by cards that leave a record of every transaction. Already, known smokers are unable to adopt children in certain areas. They have also been denied treatment under the National Health Service in a number of famous cases. Just think of a world where the authorities know exactly how many cream cakes or condoms we buy, and what magazines we read. And that is the sort of world to which the war on money laundering is taking us. Therefore, on the grounds both of individual freedom and of social utility, there is no argument whatever for continuing with the present War on Drugs. It is a War that benefits only criminals and a few drug enforcement agencies, and that harms every one of the rest of us, whether or not we take drugs. Of course, the special interests have so far prevailed; and they may within the next few years get the publication of articles like this made into the criminal offence of "sending out the wrong sort of message to young people", or whatever. But even with our controlled media, the lies cannot be kept up very much longer. This is neither a profound nor an original article. But I send it out, hoping that it will be another tiny nail in the coffin of drug prohibition. ========================== Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send an e-mail Body: Subscribe "Free Life Commentary" Your Name -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Clickable version: Subscribe - mailto:old.whig@virgin.net?body=Subscribe%20FL-Commentary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Issues are archived at Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers Esterbrooke Street London, SW1P 4NN Telephone: 0956 472 199 If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can be obtained by writing to me at the above address. Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind for the contents. -- Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | [------------------------- 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 #84 (fwd) Date: 10 May 1998 15:39:12 PST On May 10, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia May 10, 1998 #84 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.jollytax.org/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html DEMOCRATS DEFEND CROOKS Who shall be our champion of justice? Apparently, no one. No matter what level of political squabbling we hear coming from D.C., the law, as inflicted on us serf citizens, obviously does not apply to the members of the protected class in Washington. Unless there's an independent counsel around, that is. Last week, Rep. Dan Burton played the political talk show route reporting on the obstruction of justice (and Congress) by the Democrats. Burton took the badgering by the liberal talking heads in stride and made some good points -- particularly that there are 92 Clinton cronies who have either taken the fifth or fled the country. The TV talking heads accused him of editing the Webb Hubbell prison tapes. "Release all the tapes," the Clinton surrogates repeated in a well-rehearsed chorus. Burton did. Now they're complaining about that. There was a big sign above that jail house telephone Hubbell used to talk with his wife and others. It informs all telephone users that their conversations are being recorded. Hubbell was a sneak thief, a crook, a felon. That's why he was in prison. That's why he needed to be watched. And that's why he knew he was being watched. So, shall we believe this past chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, partner in the Rose Law Firm and number three man in the Justice Department is stupid? No, he's a crook. He's not stupid. He knew his conversations were being recorded. He knew the Clinton White House would be scanning those tapes. Therefore, he played to that audience. And, as the Washington Times editorialized on May 6 about Social-Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's antics in defending the criminal class in the administration: "Exactly what part of Hubbell's declaration, 'So, I need to roll over one more time,' does Mr. Waxman not understand?" Hubbell owed a couple hundred thousand dollars in back taxes on the money he stole from his partners and clients at Rose. Yet, when he pulled in $700,000 the year before going to prison, he only paid $30,000 of it in income tax. His excuse? They needed the money to pay bills. Actually, they also needed it for fancy vacations, housekeepers, new expensive clothing, and generally to maintain the lifestyle for which they had become accustomed while ripping off all that money at the Rose Law Firm. The sorry point is that, were it not for Starr's investigation, the Hubbell's would have gotten away with that income tax fraud. Now Hubbell is using Susan McDougal's script. Starr wants him to lie about the Clintons, he says. Funny thing is that both Hubbell's and McDougal's lawyers are playing from the same script, too. We also expect both attorneys to get the same results for their clients: prison. Others in the Dixie Mafia got nailed, too. Charles C. Owen, Hubbell's friend, and a veteran Little Rock tax lawyer, was indicted in Washington for helping the Hubbells pay next-to-nothing in income taxes on three quarters of a million bucks. Funny thing, too; last week Owen conducted an Arkansas Bar Association seminar in Little Rock on "ethical considerations in tax and business matters." The seminar, as was reported, had special emphasis on "the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion." The Arkansas Bar Association advertises Owen thusly: "His practice focuses primarily in the areas of advising businesses in corporate and partnership income tax planning and individuals in wealth preservation, income, estate and gift tax planning with emphasis on legal strategies to preserve assets from lawsuits, creditors' claims and taxation." Now folks, we know there are some honest people in Arkansas. There must be! It's just that things look really bad for that state right now. They let Bill Clinton teach Constitutional law, Joycelyn Elders teach medicine, Hillary Clinton become a partner in a major law firm, and made Webb Hubbell Chief Justice of their Supreme Court. Then there's the drug running at Mena Airport, massive money laundering, a long series of untimely deaths associated with Clinton, flimflam land deals, and massive bank and S&L fraud. Yup. Just your typical Democrat controlled little State. Incidentally, anyone interested can listen to the Hubbell tapes. They are posted at: http://www.cspan.org/guide/executive/investigation/hubbell.htm and http://www.audionet.com/news/hubbelltapes/ BOTH NEGLIGENT AND CRIMINAL One famous quote from 19th century Supreme Court Justice John Marshall states, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." That is exactly what Congress did, too: It used the power to tax to totally and completely disgrace the Constitution for the United States. Many of today's Lords and Ladies of The Hill try to act surprised and outraged when told in hearings that the Internal Revenue Service uses fear as its main tactic against the American public. They act like they didn't know the IRS uses military-like assault teams to break into unsuspecting citizen's homes. And they would have us believe that they are not aware the IRS makes it a practice to hound innocent Americans into forking over money they do not owe, just so IRS collection reports will look good. This smells even worse than the wet manure I spread out back yesterday! Every Member of Congress was informed of these very common illegal IRS tactics thousands of times by their constituents. No Member of Congress acted on these atrocities because they chose not to act. Simply put, Congress did not care. Worse yet, Congress changes the tax law every year, causing there to be so much poorly written income tax law that not even the tax attorneys in the IRS understand it all. Then Congress gave the IRS a high profile police position in the "war on drugs." Now, the current tax bill in Congress has at least 100 more changes in the law to "help" the American public. When will this foolishness end? In the last Senate hearings, specific questions were asked but never answered. For instance, one IRS collection officer actually stole over 20 automobiles from the government. Yet, the man was not prosecuted or even fired. Nor would the IRS give his name when asked. The Senate committee, with their typical lack of cojones, dropped the issue. It was reported that IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti "inspected" the New York office. IRS examiner Maureen O'Dwyer testified that senior managers in her office carefully controlled what Rossotti was able to see: "As the commissioner watched and listened, selected employees told of great accomplishments. Hidden in the back rooms was the ineptness and discord." O'Dwyer and others testified that they have heard IRS managers say that reforms ordered by Congress don't mean a thing. And it's true. For instance, the IRS still uses collection quotas for promotions. The whole culture in the IRS, starting from the top on down, is rotten. There is no fix available for that mess. Senators Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Connie Mack (R-FL) suggested that the only way to change that oppressive culture would be to fire the executives. Rossotti refused, saying instead that it will take years to change, and require continuing help from Congress. So, Congress gave the IRS executives a big raise (to $175,000). Rossotti, evidently, has no intention of changing anything anytime soon. Congress can, though. Easily. Last week, we described the "deprivation of rights under color of law" law (18 USC 242): "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . ." All Congress need do is to pass a bill stating that all public servants must honor every section of the Constitution and respect all rights and liberties of the people while enforcing any law, rule regulation or executive order. No exceptions. Period. Violation should require mandatory prison time. Who's the idiot saying the tax man has a general search warrant? Lest anyone forget, the issuing of general search warrants was one of the main reasons we had a revolutionary war. That is why the procedure is unconstitutional today. So, who's the idiot who gave the IRS unconstitutional powers? Congress, that's who. And they can fix it with one simple bill. Any enforcement officer or bureaucrat of any branch of government who violates the rights of a citizen should go to prison. And, while we're thinking about idiots: The IRS spent many billions of taxpayer's dollars on a new computer system that does not work. Finally they admitted it. It will never work. They wasted billions of dollars. Yet, no one was ever fired for this incompetent negligence. Worse yet, these rocket scientists at the IRS didn't even know that we have a century change coming up. Their computers will not work after January 30, 1999. Breaks my heart. So, what is Congress' fix for all these problems? Congress is going to give the IRS an $18-Billion raise for modernization. Only in government. For more on the IRS, the new bill, and other such foolishness, visit the Senate Committee on Finance web page at: http://www.senate.gov/~finance/fin-pres.htm Hint: Keep sharp objects and guns away from the desk while reading. SECRET COURTS, DESTROY RIGHTS The acts of Jimmy Carter still prey on the American people. Add Clinton's propensity for issuing oppressive executive orders, and together they managed to trash the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Back in 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That gave federal agents authority to secretly bug any individual suspected of, or knowing someone suspected of, being an agent of a hostile foreign government. Today, potential terrorists, or those who may know or have contact with potential terrorists, are included. In other words, the targeted person need not be suspected of any crime. This secret spying on American citizens is handled by secret federal agents, authorized by warrants issued by a secret federal FISA court and both the procedure and the results are, of course, secret. It gets better, though. Clinton's Executive Order 12949 gives the secret FISA court authority to approve black-bag operations, and allows the Department of Justice to conduct physical, as well as electronic, searches -- without first obtaining a warrant in open court. Nor would they have to notify the subject, or provide an inventory of items seized. That's secret. Actually, this secret FISA court is more or less the court of last resort for federal agents. That is, when federal agents don't have Constitutional basis to obtain a warrant in a real court, they go to the secret court. Because, unlike regular courts, there is no requirement for probable cause for FISA judges to issue a wide-sweeping surveillance authorization against a citizen, or group of citizens, of the United States. And, issue they do. The secret court has cooperated 100% of the time so far. The court, conveniently located on the 6th Floor at the Department of Justice Building, has approved over 10,000 requests for surveillance since 1978. According to records provided to Congress, it never turned down a request to snoop. In 1995, 581 such surveillance and bugging operations requests were honored by all federal judges throughout the country. The secret FISA judges issued another 697. And remember, these are wide reaching surveillance and bugging operations, in that they include any and all associates of the "targets," as well as their relatives and casual contacts. Because of its "special" status, this court need not honor the Fourth Amendment. But it gets worse yet. Suspects charged in this court are not normally allowed to see any of the information gathered on them. Neither are their lawyers. How that works is also secret. The only information that the Department of Justice is required to give to Congressional oversight committees is the number of applications approved. Not even the members of the intelligence subcommittees are allowed to review any secret court cases, or any information at all, evidently. So, there you have it: A secret federal court that authorizes secret black bag jobs and secret wide- spread surveillance and bugging operations, produces secret reports, holds secret trials, and keeps court records secret. Apparently the Constitution and its first ten amendments must be secret from this court. Because, they certainly do not honor any of them. Nor do the judges get anywhere near honoring their oath of office. And, as usual, Congress is negligent. Instead of providing oversight, Congress passed those oppressive anti-terrorist bills. The anti-terrorist bills in turn gave the secret court more secret powers (and more reasons to use them) to allow federal agents to operate secretly against the American people. None of this is Constitutional, by any stretch of the imagination. But then, not much that happens in Washington is Constitutional anymore. GOOD vs. EVIL Let's put the current political squabbles into proper prospective: If our Constitution, as written and explained to us by the Founding Fathers, is good, what then would be the reverse of that coin? If the elected officials in our representative republic are elected to government to represent their constituents, what then shall we call those in office who represent other interests to the detriment of their electors? Evil can loosely be defined as something that is morally bad or wrong. Is breaking the law morally bad or wrong? Is supporting those who break the law morally bad or wrong? There's a little soul searching to be done here, folks; and that's a personal thing, so don't look for the ultimate answers here. You decide. We only provide information. We know that the labor unions laundered millions of illegal dollars into the last campaign cycle. Something like $35-million was used to present the Social-Democrat's position to the American public -- a position totally foreign to the expressed intent of the Founding Fathers of our nation. Furthermore, nearly a third of Congress received the bulk of their campaign funds from union associated groups. Is it any wonder, then, that the sparks are flying in Congress when committees investigate illegal money laundering by these groups? What we are seeing is that two thirds of the Democrats in Congress are publicly defending an ongoing criminal enterprise. Both Clinton and Gore (and at least a dozen of their aids) were involved in this very same criminal enterprise, as was nearly half of Congress in some way. No wonder, then, that the Democratic Party members are upset. They can't really get out of it, either. Some of the union activists most involved in illegally laundering money to the Democrats already pled guilty in open court. They also promised to cooperate in exchange for mercy. There were millions of illegal dollars laundered into campaign funds from the communist Chinese, too. A couple dozen Congressional Democrats already publicly pled guilty to receiving that money. Of course, they are the protected class and so were not prosecuted for receiving the illegal campaign donations. Rather, as a public relations gimmick, some of them returned some of the illegal funds. "Some" of them returned "some" of it. A major function of the federal government is the protection of the people of the United States. Yet, Clinton and Gore, with the acquiescence of many Democrats in Congress, gave communist Chinese access to top secret ICBM nuclear missile technology for use against us. Now, huge nuclear missiles are again pointed at many of our cities. If it is morally bad or wrong to support known criminal activity, what then shall we think of the national media? They are in full assault of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Rep. Dan Burton and others investigating wrongdoing. That is most evident in the recent media support for Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell, two convicted sneak thieves. The national media bashes the investigators and protects the perpetrators in the White House and Congress. Should we accept that? You will have to decide which of these acts are good and which are evil. It's time to sort it out. But, whatever your personal determination may be, please act on it. Changes must be made. Now is the time to force the issue. Just as an aside here: Last week, we recommended that everyone send a simple postcard of support to Rep. Dan Burton. This week, KSFO Radio (San Francisco) morning talk show hosts Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan are suggesting that listeners put a buck in an envelope and send it to Burton as a show of grass roots support for his investigation, and to counter the vicious anti-Burton campaign of the Clinton Crime Syndicate. The response is said to be quite good. One report states that Congressman Burton has called the Lee Rodgers show twice and sent a personal e-mail to thank him. He indicated that they are getting a lot of "Bucks for Burton" and they are quite overwhelmed by the expressions of support. FOX NEWS CHANNEL LET US DOWN By: Craig Brown -- for Heads Up I wish someone would explain Fox to me. Rupert Murdoch is the antithesis of Ted (who am I?) Turner. The Fox News Channel was trumpeted as the great alternative, the Populist News Channel to answer the cries of the millions upon millions of Americans, lately known as the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Fox would be the network that would lay bare and let the sun shine on the festering treason of our current administration and the Congress that has abandoned its duty to the people. It was to be all of this and had Fox kept its promise, it would have been rewarded with a following unheard of in this age of communication. So what happened? Rather than fulfill its promise, Fox News dropped into lock step with the other Administration lackeys. They competed with them for the best coverage of Monica Lewinsky while ignoring the treasonous payback to China for its help to the Clinton campaign fund. While Fox devoted itself to Monica watching, Mr. Clinton quietly signed Executive Orders designed to strip away our Constitutional rights. With the Fox Network, Mr. Murdoch has an opportunity to make a great difference in the salvation of this country. The shame . . . the utter shame . . . lies in not using it. Note: For more on the socialist-supporting antics of the liberal national media, visit The Media Research Center web page often. The site is located at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/ THE MASTERS MUST CONTROL The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, an alliance of consumer, health, safety and insurance groups who work on highway and auto safety issues is after us again. And, sure enough, they want government to pass even more oppressive laws "to protect our safety." First their spiel: American drivers apparently are sick and tired of cars running red lights, with 65 percent saying in a poll released last week that they favor installing cameras at intersections to take pictures of those who fail to stop. And, sure enough, along comes Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater announcing a nationwide crackdown on red-light running. Who says hefty campaign contributions and bribes don't work in a free society. . . . In 40 years of driving, I have to admit that I have seen a few people run red lights. Most of them, however, were emergency vehicles with lights and sirens on. Others were police cars, probably late for the donut shop. Never mind, though. Government is going to fix it anyway. Big government plans to install cameras to take pictures of people who run red lights. That way, all they need do is mail a ticket to the vehicle owner. The problem is that in most jurisdictions an officer must actually see an offense happen to issue a citation. But that type of legal inconvenience is irrelevant to the controlling class. As always, long-standing conventional practices must fall to the expediency of the police. Another problem is that most municipal areas have a lot of traffic control lights, which will require a lot of cameras. That could get very expensive. So, we've got a better way. More foolproof, too. The controlling elite should require that all vehicles be equipped with a small computer. Traffic signals could then send a signal to the vehicle computer stating the signal light's location and the status of the light respective to that oncoming vehicle. Run a red light, and the computer sends a signal off to the local cop-house, giving vehicle information and location, as well as the date and time of the offense. And, how will they know who the driver is? Easy. A card reader mounted in the dashboard. We'll all soon be required to carry big brother's identification card at all times. Inserting the card in the vehicle should be a requirement to drive. That way, the police will know who, what, where, and when. Better yet, if traffic speed signs were also encoded with bar-codes or whatnot, the computer could also snitch on speeders. It could regulate restricted drivers, too. So you see, the controlling class is missing the boat by installing cameras. It's much less expensive for government to make the vehicle owners foot the bill for the necessary computer upgrades. The corresponding upgrades to the traffic light systems, then, would only cost forty to sixty bucks a copy, rather than hundreds of dollars each for cameras. And the ancillary duties this same system can handle are only limited by the imagination of the masters. -- 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: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: (Fwd) Permanent Brady Info Date: 10 May 1998 19:02:11 +0500 From our friend, TJ Johnston: The ATF has published proposed regulations for the PERMANENT Brady Law. You may comment, but comments must be received before May 20. Don't guess. Download the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and participate. http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/rules/notice857.htm Brad A. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: IP: Utah and U.S. Agree to Huge Swap of Land (fwd) Date: 11 May 1998 07:45:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: New York Times May 10, 1998 Utah and U.S. Agree to Huge Swap of Land By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SALT LAKE CITY -- Ending a debate over Utah trust lands that had simmered for six decades, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Gov. Mike Leavitt announced an agreement that is being called the largest land swap in the history of the continental United States. The Federal Government will get 376,739 acres of Utah schools land sprinkled through national forests, parks and monuments and the mineral rights to other land. In exchange, Utah schools get $50 million in cash as well as minerals and 145,000 acres outside the parks and areas proposed for wilderness. Babbitt and Leavitt broke the deadlock on Friday after intense one-to-one negotiations. The deal is subject to the approval of Congress and President Clinton. Utah also is dropping two lawsuits against the Federal Government, one challenging Clinton's 1996 creation of the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah and another seeking a ruling on the value of 240,000 acres of state trust land within Federal boundaries. Some 3.7 million acres of school trust lands speckle the state. The parcels were set aside when Utah gained statehood in 1896, with revenue from development of those lands earmarked for Utah's public schools. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ----------------------- 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. ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Swiss Want To Join United Nations Date: 12 May 1998 07:21:28 -0400 >Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:05:42 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Swiss Want To Join United Nations > >Swiss Want To Join United Nations > > GENEVA (AP) -- The time has come > for Switzerland to become a full member of the United > Nations, the alpine nation's president said today. > > Because of its neutrality, > Switzerland has never been a member of the United > Nations. It does, however, take part in U.N. agencies > such as the 191-nation World Health Organization and > eventual U.N. membership is a declared aim of Swiss > foreign policy. > > Speaking today at the opening > session of WHO's annual meeting in Geneva, President > Flavio Cotti said the Swiss had learned of the > importance of international cooperation through its > membership in the U.N. health agency. > > ``It is therefore all the more > regrettable that (Switzerland) is not a full member of > the United Nations,'' Cotti said. > > Despite Cotti's endorsement today, > earlier plans for full U.N. membership have been > stymied by ``no'' votes on related issues in Swiss > referendums. > > In 1995, the government wanted to > send peacekeepers to U.N. operations, but the Swiss > people threw out the plan in a plebiscite. > > The Swiss appointed a committee > this month to canvas support for a referendum to amend > the constitution in favor of joining the United > Nations. Under Swiss law, 100,000 signatures on a > petition are enough to force a referendum. > > If the committee gathers enough > signatures and Swiss vote in favor of the move, > Switzerland could join the world body in 2000. > > AP-NY-05-11-98 1017EDT >-- >****************************************************************** > 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 Subject: Hidden threats -- Part I Date: 12 May 1998 07:32:51 -0400 >Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:11:37 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Hidden threats -- Part I > >Geoff Metcalf > Exclusive commentary > > Hidden threats -- Part I > ------------------------------------------------------- > > =A91998, WorldNetDaily.com > > For several years now I have been getting all sorts of > wild reports about "Government Internment Camps." I > have generally dismissed these rumblings as classic > right-wing paranoia, extrapolation of facts not yet in > evidence, or creative writing. However, recently, > additional information has been revealed which lends > credibility to the myriad concerns which have been > expressed. Hey, even paranoids get chased. > > The U.S. Army director of resource management has > confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the > establishment of a civilian inmate labor program under > development by the Department of Army. The document > states, "Enclosed for your review and comment is the > draft Army regulation on civilian inmate labor > utilization" and the procedure to "establish civilian > prison camps on installations." > > Civilian internment camps or prison camps, often > referred to as concentration camps, have been the > subject of much rumor and speculation during the past > several years in this country. Various publications, > Internet threads and some radio talk programs have > focused on the issue. > > However, I found it significant when Rep. Henry > Gonzalez, D-TX, clarified the question of the > existence of these civilian detention camps. In an > interview Hank said, "the truth is yes -- you do have > these standby provisions, and the plans are here ... > whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism > ... evoke the military and arrest Americans and put > them in detention camps." Heck, we did it before (to > Americans of Japanese descent), we could do it again. > > This is not anything new. This is not a partisan > Democrat/Republican, or Conservative/Liberal issue. It > may have just recently been actually acknowledged, but > it has a history. > > Most even modestly educated folks know that Hitler did > it, and Stalin did it. However, you should know that > the venerable Franklin Delano Roosevelt also developed > a plan for the United States. In fact, on Aug. 24, > 1939, ole FDR met with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to > develop the detention plan for us. Five months later, > Hitler opened the Auschwitz detention center in > Poland. > > Hoover met with Attorney General J. Howard McGrath on > Aug. 3, 1948 to detail a plan whereby President Truman > could suspend constitutional liberties during a > national emergency. The plan was code-named "Security > Portfolio" and, when implemented, it would authorize > the FBI to summarily arrest up to 20,000 persons and > place them in national security detention camps. > Prisoners would not have the right to a court hearing > or habeas corpus appeal. "Security Portfolio" allowed > the FBI to develop a watch list of those who would be > detained as well as detailed information on their > physical appearance, family, place of work, etc. This > was long before sub-dermal bio-chip implants, retinal > scans and other biometrics. > > Two years later, Congress approved the Internal > Security Act of 1950. This pre-FEMA puppy contained a > provision authorizing an emergency detention plan. It > is real interesting that Hoover was not satisfied with > this law because it did not suspend the Constitution > and it guaranteed the right to a court hearing (habeas > corpus). For two years, while the FBI continued to > secretly establish the detention camps and work out > detailed seizure plans for thousands of individuals, > Hoover kept badgering Attorney General McGrath for the > official permission to ignore the 1950 law and move on > with the more aggressive 1948 program. > > As evidence that we have waaaay too many laws, codes, > rules and regulations, it wasn't until the Senate held > hearings in December of 1975 (25 years later) that it > was revealed the ongoing internment plan had never > been terminated. The report, entitled, "Intelligence > Activities, Senate Resolution 21," exposed the covert > agenda. In a series of documents, memos and testimony > by assorted government informants, the reality emerged > of the designs by the federal government (our > government) to monitor, infiltrate, arrest and > incarcerate a potentially large segment of American > society. That Senate report also exposed the existence > of the Master Search Warrant (MSW) and the Master > Arrest Warrant (MAW) which, by the way, are currently > STILL in force today. > > The MAW document, authorized by the attorney general > of the United States, directs the head of the FBI to: > "Arrest persons whom I deem dangerous to the public > peace and safety. These persons are to be detained and > confined until further order." Please note the > language, "Whom I deem dangerous." Who might a Janet > Reno choose to arbitrarily and capriciously "deem > dangerous"? Constitutional Conservatives? Patriots? > Conservative Republicans? Radio Talk Show Hosts? Joe > Farah and everyone on the administration's enemies > list? > > The MSW also instructs the FBI director to "search > certain premises where (1) it is believed that there > may be found contraband, prohibited articles, or (2) > other materials in violation of the Proclamation of > the President of the United States. It includes (3) > such items as firearms, shortwave radio receiving > sets, cameras, propaganda materials, printing presses, > mimeography machines, membership and financial records > of organizations or groups (4) that have been declared > subversive, or may hereafter be declared subversive by > the Attorney General." > > I added the numbers for ease of the following: > > 1. "it is BELIEVED that there MAY be" -- Hell-o?!?!? > No probable cause needed. Just Because. Because > they can by brute force. > 2. "other materials in violation of the Proclamation > of the President of the United States" -- Huh? > Proclafreakingmation?!?!? > 3. "such items as firearms ..." -- The EXACT reason > we have the Second Amendment is to preclude this > kind of neutering. The framers WANTED us armed to > prevent abuse of power under the color of > authority. > "shortwave radio receiving sets" -- Silence the > critics, and deny INFORMATION to the people. > "cameras" -- To prevent the dissemination of > abuses of power? > "propaganda materials" -- Like Thomas Paines' > "Common Sense" or a contemporary WorldNetDaily. > "mimeography machines" -- Expect that to turn > into fax m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Canada Customs seizes books Date: 12 May 1998 07:20:12 -0400 >Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:06:29 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Canada Customs seizes books > >Monday, May 11, 1998 > > WorldNetDaily Exclusive > Canada Customs seizes books > Free speech proponent protests trend > > Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com > > "Canada's Customs censors have run amok," > says Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association > for Free Expression. > > Fromm is protesting the seizure earlier > this month by Canada Customs officials of 98 different > books, booklets and tapes. The material, valued at > $1,450 retail, was held up as potential "hate > propaganda." > > The seizure at the Chopaka border crossing, > west of Osoyoos, B.C., involved all books and tapes in > Fromm's car. Fromm had earlier in the week run a > meeting in the Okanagan, where the books were for sale. > He had later crossed into the U.S. to do some shopping > and sightseeing. The Customs officials agreed that he > was not "importing" these books and tapes and that they > were his personal/business property. > > The seizure included: > > - The Irish Fairy Tale Book: Myth and Romance from the > Old World > > - The Breakdown of the Criminal Justice System in > Canada by former B.C. Judge Les Bewley > > - The Evil Empire: Globalization's Darker Side by > former Liberal cabinet minister Paul Hellyer > > - Our Home or Native Land: What Government's Aboriginal > Policy is Doing to Canada by Melvin Smith, QC, a > constitutional adviser to four successive B.C. > governments > > - Stalking the Wild Taboo by Prof. Garrett Hardin, a > world reknowned ecologist from the University of > California at Santa Barbara > > - The Cult of the Victim by Prof. Ken Hilborn of the > University of Western Ontario > > - The Hate Crimes Law in Canada, 1970-1994: Effects and > Operation by lawyer Barbara Kulaszka, L.L.B., M.L.S. > > - Lebensraum by Dr. Ingrid Rimland, a trilogy telling > in novel form of the odyssey of German Mennonites > from Germany to Russia and then to the New World > over a 200 -year period. > > > The time it takes to examine titles can > extend to six months or more. > > "The arbitrary seizure of these books is an > outrageous affront to free speech and a severe business > hardship," adds Fromm. "I was grilled aggressively as > to whether or how I knew Bernard Klatt, a local > controversial Internet Service Provider." > > Fromm believes the Customs inspector was > motivated by an anti-German bias. "I was asked: 'Are > you related to Ernst Zundel?' I have an obviously > German name. Would I have been asked, were I Chinese, > whether I was related to Chairman Mao? I got the clear > impression that the thinking was: German equals Nazi. > Therefore, seize his books." > > Inspector Rece admitted he was no expert in > political or cultural literature. He indicated that the > authorization for the seizure had come from Stu Piggot, > his superior at the Customs and Border Service, > Okanagan and Kootenay Region, in Penticton, whom he had > phoned and consulted. > > "Sadly, Canada is becoming Cuba del Norte," > comments Fromm. "It's interesting that both Prime > Minister Chretien and House Speaker Gilbert Parent seem > inordinately fond of this communist dictatorship, which > offers its sorry people little freedom to read or to > express themselves. We seem to be moving in that > direction here. My mom and dad both volunteered and > served in the Canadian armed forces during WW II to > prevent this very sort of thing -- this book burning. > The behavior of Canada Customs is ignorant and a > disgrace to thinking men and women in a supposedly free > country." > > "Would-be dictators always go after books > -- ideas and art," says Fromm. "What most amazed me was > the bone-headed way the Customs' officers insisted on > seizing the Irish Fairy Tale Book. The one-eighth of me > that is Liverpool Irish remembers the old rebel song > 'They're Hanging Men and Women for the Wearing of the > Green.' In politically correct Canada, they're seizing > books of Irish fairy tales!" > > Founded in 1981, the Canadian Association > for Free Expression believes free speech and discussion > are essential to any functioning democracy. Freedom of > speech and freedom to express one's beliefs are > essential to human dignity. The Association, through > publishing, lectures, conferences and lobbying tries to > protect these basic human rights and to promote to the > maximum the Charter-guaranteed rights of freedom of > speech, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and > freedom of assembly. > >-- >****************************************************************** > 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 >****************************************************************** > > - achines, computers and modems. > 4. "that have been declared subversive, or MAY > hereafter be declared subversive by the Attorney > General." -- In other words, "facts which > contradict the administration's preconceived > opinions" or anything which does not conform with > the politically correct government sanctioned > view. > > Geoff Metcalf can be heard Monday-Friday on: > KSFO, 560AM in Northern California. > His web site and newsletter information is at: > http://www.ksfo560.com/Personalities/GM.htm > E-mail Geoff at:metcalfksfo@earthlink.net > ------------------------------------------------------- > > See more of Geoff Metcalf's columns > Go to the front page of > [Image] > =A91998, Western Journalism Center >--=20 >****************************************************************** > 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: Subject: IP: Washington Bought Off by High Tech Firms, Says U.S. Border Control Chairman (fwd) Date: 12 May 1998 08:16:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ntrol Chairman=20 Source: PR Newswire Washington Bought Off by High Tech Firms, Says U.S. Border Control Chairman= =20 WASHINGTON, May 11 /PRNewswire/ -- U.S. Border Control Chairman Edward Nelson accused the Congress of selling out to Silicon Valley high tech industries who wish to hire cheap foreign labor rather than hire fully qualified American workers. "Follow the money," says Nelson. "This is American politics at its ugliest -- politicians taking payoffs to vote a certain way, regardless of the consequences." "The high tech companies want to use cheap foreign labor instead of hiring Americans so they can increase their profit margins. So they hire a big Washington PR firm to pitch their story; they buy a Senator or two to hold the hearings and, bingo, Americans lose their jobs, tens of thousands of foreigner workers get visas; the rich get richer; and the American taxpayer picks up the tab." "When Bill Gates says 'Jump,' people like Senate Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Abraham say 'How High?' Or at least that is how it must appear to anyone who has watched the sham hearings on H1-B where the multi-billion dollar software giants used totally unsupported data to build their claims that there are no high tech workers in America and they must be allowed to hire more foreign workers to fill these 'high tech' slots. "Their claims of shortages are total fabrications; their claims that the job slots they need to fill require extensive specialized training are lies. Many of these so-called high tech slots could be filled by American h= igh school graduates or certainly those who had completed a basic computer programming course at one of the technical training schools." "Anyone who has ever used Microsoft Windows knows Bill Gates isn't hiring rocket scientists to develop his software programs." Nelson chided.= =20 "And what will happen to these foreign workers after a few years? They get laid off; thrown onto the pile of American unemployed while Microsoft, Cypress Semiconductor and all the other high tech giants hire more foreigners, buy more Senators, further corrupting the country that made their successes possible." Increasing the H1-B quotas so more immigrants can come here to take American jobs will also make it more difficult to find jobs for those Americans coming off welfare and it makes it easier for companies seeking to get rid of their older workers, violating all of our age discrimination laws.=20 "Americans like to believe that their elected officials have some integrity; that they could never be 'bought off.' But this sorry episode demonstrates that our elected officials will do anything, if the price is right." Edward Nelson, Chairman of U.S. Border Control, announced that the votes for H1-B will be used in its annual vote rating of the Congress. "The American voter deserves to know which politicians are making life better for Americans and who are destroying our country." Action on H1-B will take place in the House on Tuesday or Wednesday when it is taken up by the full committee. U.S. Border Control is a non-profit organization dedicated to reforming America's border and immigration policies. SOURCE U.S. Border Patrol CONTACT: Lyle Ryter of U.S. Border Control, 202-661-4707, fax, 202-478-0254, or e-mail, ryter@usbc.org Web Site: http://www.usbc.org =A91998 PR Newswire. ----------------------- 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 ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton supporter Date: 12 May 1998 11:54:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "When we practice one nation politics, we make the nation. When we make the future, we honor our true past." Excerpt from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/~ksgpress/ksg_news/transcripts/blumenthal.htm From a speech by Sidney Blumenthal April 23 1998 at the JFK School of Gov't at Harvard Univ. BEGIN EXCERPT And now I will be more responsive to the question about Mr. Starr. We are plunged, at least in Washington, into a politics of defamation, a consuming world of innuendo, false witnesses, allusion, leaks, and smears. The abuse of the Office of the Independent Counsel by Kenneth Starr is a transparently disguised attempt to destroy this presidency. The original intent of the Office of the Independent Counsel was to remove it from politics. But Starr is profoundly political in his intent. The problem is not simply the largesse from Richard Mellon Scaffe , the eccentric, right-wing billionaire, Starr's numerous conflicts of interest, ideological and financial, his speeches at Pat Robertson's university, his alliances, brazen alliances, with individuals determined to inflict whatever damage they can on the President. It is not simply that he has assembled a crew of prosecutorial pirates with lengthy records of prosecutorial abuse, and installed a chief deputy, Hickman Ewing, a religious fanatic, who has proclaimed that he operates from a presumption of guilt. It is not simply that Ken Starr has jettisoned the language of law, speaking now of defilers of the temple, the apocalyptic rhetoric of a zealot on a mission divined from a higher authority. The ultimate problem is that, in his fervor, he is waging an assault on American rights, that he has engaged in an anti-Constitutional destructiveness. He assaults freedom of speech and the right to petition the government. He has attempted to impose his very own sedition act. He abuses the grand jury to act out his personal temper tantrums and harass critics. He leaks with abandon, in violation of grand jury rules, criminal rules, and legal tradition. He uses the instruments of intimidation and smear without restraint. Ken Starr is a figure whom the framers sought, in their design, to have rendered impossible, an inquisitor of unlimited, unchecked power. Starr, however, lacks any skepticism about his own certitudes, or even any sense of his unfamiliarity with criminal law. His lack of knowledge of the Constitution is glaring. His doctrine that the First Amendment is concerned with the truth is precisely the doctrine the First Amendment was enacted to prevent. But Starr is sure he knows the truth and that he should be its judge. His self-righteousness, his insecurity, his partisanship, his breath-taking hypocrisy, have fueled an onslaught on rights that is unethical, illegal, and always political. Now he has appointed himself grand inquisitor for life. Ken Starr is on an endless quest, if not for vindication, then of vindictiveness. But I am certain that in historical retrospect this perverse episode will be viewed in its proper perspective, as Jefferson viewed the alien and sedition acts, in his words, "a reign of witches." When we stand for liberty at home, we gain respect for ourselves around the world. There is an indissoluble link between the cause of democracy in our own country and abroad. "Let us," John Quincy Adams admonished, "not be unmindful that liberty is power." This was also an admonition for responsibility, for those in a democratic government to use it to forge a social compact of general improvement that extends liberty. When we practice one nation politics, we make the nation. When we make the future, we honor our true past. Thank you. (applause) Excerpt from Sidney Blumenthal's April 23 1998 speech to the JFK School of Gov't at Harvard Univ. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/~ksgpress/ksg_news/transcripts/blumenthal.htm Questioner: Good evening, sir. My name is Tom Cotton. I'm a senior at the college. I have two questions, both pertaining to Mr. Starr. First, although you did not say the words in your speech this evening, you seem to be implying that Mr. Starr, as Mrs. Clinton has said, is a member of a vast right-wing conspiracy. I was wondering if Democrats Janet Reno and Eric Holder, who referred the matter to Starr, asked the matter to be referred to Starr, as well as Democrats Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey, have somehow been subverted by this right-wing conspiracy? And, second, you had claimed, or you accused, Mr. Starr of unethical, immoral behavior, and I was wondering if you consider it especially moral or ethical for you, as a paid member of the White House staff, by taxpayer funds, to be defending President Clinton on private charges, or, I presume, alleged conduct which led to these ... (inaudible) as a private, not public, matter? Mr. Blumenthal: The only grounds on which Ken Starr can bring a case against the President is abuse of office. Those are public grounds. That's a torturous question, but if you're asking if I believe that there's a vast, right-wing conspiracy, there's certainly-- It's not something on which I have a theory, but only suggest facts. And I certainly think that the role of the Scaffe money ought to be looked into. It's now a question, one small part of it, that has lapped up on the only witness in the case. Ken Starr himself has numerous ties to the Scaffe operation. It's undeniable. He quit Pepperdine because it was funded by Scaffe. He's been associated with a number of groups that are funded by Scaffe. The <<<<< Independent Women's Forum, for which he wrote an amicus brief <<<<< on behalf of Paula Jones, which he never completed when he <<<<< assumed his office of independent counsel, in and of itself, it <<<<< ought to have been grounds for not taking the office under a sense <<<<< or prudence and propriety. In itself, it is a conflict of interest. <<<<< There are other groups, as well, Federal Society , funded by Scaffe, and so on and so forth. I mean, you can go through this sort of schematic list. Is there a right-wing? Absolutely. Is it out to get the President? Absolutely. ========================================================================== 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: John Curtis Subject: Re: Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton supporter Date: 12 May 1998 14:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Last week's Weekly Standard made an issue of this speech by Blumenthal in their top editorial. Their recomendation was that both Blumenthal and Starr work for the Executive (Clinton) and Clinton must either fire Starr or fire Blumenthal, because allowing Blumenthal to engage in this type of diatribe amounts to obstruction of justice if untrue or grounds for dismissing Starr if true. This isn't over. The recent indictments of the Hubbells indicate to me that Starr is very serious and behaving like a real prosecutor. My opinion is that Hubbell's reneging on his cooperation under immunity was a critical point in the Starr investigation and it looked like Starr flubbed it. With these recent indictments it looks like Starr has remade himself and *will* pursue Hubbell for his non-cooperation. A good sign. The whole Susan McDougal folk-hero bit is wearing thin too. "Just answer the questions." ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Alert! Heritage River fiasco (fwd) Date: 12 May 1998 11:21:38 PST Well, there goes our Fishing and Hunting..... On May 12, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Please pass this on! Josh >Subject: Heritage River fiasco > >I am sending an Alert on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative that Pres. >Clinton will select the first 10 rivers to be in the program on May 13. >Once he puts them into the program the communities that are affected cannot >get out. It is a land grab and the President is using his Executive powers >to do it. It will affect all the communities that are next to the rivers >and watersheds. In other words the land next to the land. There will be Non >Governmental Agencies controlling the water and land, and that will affect >farming, fishing, hunting , and living in those areas. They will set up >river navigators and even your local Indian tribes will have control. They >can also use satellites to monitor if communities and people comply. Only >communities that can get 2 U.S. Senators and Supervisors opt to get out. >Please call Senators and Congressman to oppose this land grab. > >Good hunting, > >Delbert > >Western Fish and Wildlife Federation, Inc. >"Wolves or Watchdogs, it's hard to say from which the sheep have most to >fear" [------------------------- 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: IP: The impending Starr report (fwd) Date: 12 May 1998 13:45:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The din is rising in Congress as Democrats scream for the removal of Dan Burton as head of the committee investigating campaign finance abuses; and for Newt Gingrich to withdraw from any role in investigations if/when the results of Ken Starr's investigations are brought before the House as required by the Independent Counsel statute. They claim as their excuse, the release of the index into the Hubbell prison tapes. It's good to see they haven't lost their sense of humor. Burton's committee, of course, had released the entire set of tapes to reporters, at the same time as the index. Those reporters did what they thought best: released the index while saying nothing about the complete set of tapes the index referred to. And the Dems immediately jumped on the chance, doing one of their usual pretzel twists and announcing that release of the index was a deliberate attempt to distort the contents of the tapes-- pretending that the tapes were somehow secret or unavailable. Then, to top it off, instead of excoriating the reporters who did the selecting, they announced that it was *Burton* who was trying to do the distortion! Thus they continue their usual tactics, of trying to kill off anyone who starts approaching the truth about their agenda or techniques-- while carefully not addressing the facts brought up by those leaders, pointing out extensive corruption of the screamers' operations in campaign finance, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, etc. Isn't this a hoot? It's a blast to see these poor simps tripping over their own feet, spinning out lies as hard and fast as they can, in hopes that people won't find the truth. The issue, of course, is not Dan Burton or Newt Gingrich, despite the numerous attempts by the leftist extremists to make it look that way. The issue is the stonewalling and obstruction of investigations started by the Justice Department, by the Clinton Administration-- and, of course, the stated disavowal of the Chief Executive of his sworn duty to carry out and enforce the laws of the country. Let them scream all they want-- when has there ever been a criminal who didn't voice opposition to the cop or detective whose job it was to find out what illegal activities he's been engaged in? Some things never change. Today we have the farce of the news media pretending that the criminals (whoever they are) attempts at derailing the investigations into their conduct, have the same legitimacy as the attempts of the investigators themselves to do their jobs, in an effort to make it look like there is some sort of horse race going on here, which would sell more newspapers (of course!). But, ultimately, it's won't make much difference. The silence maintained by Ken Starr (required by law) will be broken soon when he releases his report and finally gets a chance to answer (or, more often, ignore as they deserve) the accusations of the screamers and criminals on the left-- with facts, evidence... and, ultimately, convictions. Steve Maher "...there is something profoundly demeaning and destructive, to have the White House systematically undermine an officer of the Department of Justice." - Newt Gingrich, April 27, 1998 ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Quiz Date: 13 May 1998 07:09:32 -0700 (PDT) The following quiz is from a pamphlet put out by the folks at National Justice Foundation. ********************************************************************** ARE YOU A FREEMAN? TEST YOURSELF! CHECK YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL I. Q. CONSTITUTIONAL I. Q. TEST 1. The role of those elected to public office is: a. Public Administrator b. Public servant c. Public enemy d. Caesar 2. The U.S. Constitution was written to control: a. Government b. Citizens c. Criminals 3. To be concerned about your neighbor's welfare is: a. Humanism b. Patriotism c. Humanitarian 4. To be humanistic and humanitarian is the same: a. True b. False 5. According to U.S. Common Law in criminal trials by Jury, the facts and the Law are judged by: a. The Judge b. The Jury c. Facts by Jury, Law by Judge d. Facts by Judge, Law by Jury 6. The U.S. Constitution is based upon: a. English Common Law b. Bible Law c. Equity Law d. Roman Civil Law 7. A "Dollar" today is measured by: a. Gold or Silver b. Paper c. Debt 8. A license issued by the government agency is issued to: a. Protect the public b. Protect the licensee c. Control the licensee 9. The U.S. Constitution states that: a. Schools should keep God out b. Religion should stay out of government c. Government should stay out of religion 10. It is Constitutional for government to require a license of ministers to marry people: a. True b. False 11. The form of government established by the United States Constitution is: a. Oligarchy b. Monarchy c. Anarchy d. Democracy e. Republic 12. The Supreme Law of the Land is: a. U.S. Supreme Court b. U.S. Constitution c. U.S. Congress d. U.S. President e. United Nations 13. Senators are not required to take an oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution. a. True b. False 14. The "Higher Power" (Rom 13:1-7) of the United States is: a. The Supreme Court b. The governing officials c. The People d. The President e. None of these 15. Since Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar", who is Caesar in the U.S.A.? a. The President b. The Congress c. The Supreme Court d. The U.S. Constitution e. None of the above 16. The U.S. Constitution allows for a direct tax only by: a. Capitation b. Income c. Compensation d. non-Whites 17. American Common Law is based upon: a. Religious Law b. God's Law c. Supreme Court decisions d. County Sheriff 18. The following quotation is NOT in the U.S. Constitution: a. "No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." b. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be..." c. "No Tax or Duty shall be Laid on Articles exported from..." d. "Separation of Church and State shall be maintained" 19. The U.S. Constitution: a. Grants certain unalienable rights b. Guarantees our privileges c. Secures our rights d. Protects criminals 20. The Social Security System: a. Guarantees a sizable check to all upon retirement b. Assures us that government really cares c. Puts us under the Federal Government jurisdiction d. None of these 21. In the United States, WHO is to interpret the Constitution? a. The President b. The Supreme Court c. Lawyers and Attorneys d. Juries e. Law Schools ANSWERS: 1. b 12. b 2. a 13. b 3. c 14. c 4. b 15. e 5. b 16. a 6. a 17. a 7. c 18. d 8. c 19. c 9. c 20. c 10. b 21. d 11. e YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL I.Q. 21 RIGHT Walking in Freedom 19-20 Knowing the Score 16-18 On the Way 12-15 Still Trusting the Media For further information... Contact National Justice Foundation 1617 16th Street Sacramento, Ca 96814 (916) 442-0537 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Dan Burton (fwd) Date: 13 May 1998 14:37:32 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: http://www.house.gov/reform/finance/statemnt/pointpriv.htm Government Reform and Oversight Committee May 12, 1998 Point of Privilege: Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) Silence of the Witnesses: My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle are fond of complaining about the number of subpoenas I have issued. For the record, I have issued just over 600 since the investigation began a year-and-a-half ago. There is a very simple reason that I have been compelled to issue these subpoenas. This Committee has received absolutely no cooperation from more than 90 key witnesses and participants in efforts to funnel foreign money into U.S. campaigns. A total of 91 witness have either Taken the Fifth to avoid incriminating themselves or fled the country to avoid testifying. The Justice Department hasn't received much cooperation either. When Director Freeh testified before the Committee last December, he told us that they had issued over 1,000 subpoenas. 53 people have taken the Fifth. These include Webster Hubbell -- the President's hand-picked Associate Attorney General, John Huang -- the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce who was in the White House over 100 times during the President's first term, and Mark Middleton -- a high-level aide in the office of the White House Chief of Staff. I want to be clear about what this means -- high-level appointees of the President have exercised their 5th Amendment rights not to implicate themselves in criminal activities. These people do not want to testify because they do not want to admit to the commission of crimes. 38 witnesses have either fled the country or refused to make themselves available to be interviewed in their countries or residence. There has never before been a Congressional investigation that has had to investigate a scandal that is so broad and so international in scope. There has never before been a Congressional investigation that has had over 90 witnesses refuse to cooperate or flee the country. The fact that we have had so many non-cooperating witnesses is the reason that we have had to issue so many subpoenas. For instance, Charlie Trie, even though he has returned to the United States, has refused to cooperate with the Committee. To overcome this problem, we have had to issue 117 subpoenas to banks, phone companies, businesses and other individuals to get information that Mr. Trie could have provided to us himself. We have had to issue 60 subpoenas to attempt to get information about Ted Sioeng. Ted Sioeng and his family have given $400,000 to the Democratic National Committee. They have given $150,000 to Republican causes. Not only has Ted Sioeng fled the country, but more than a dozen people associated with him left as well. If Ted Sioeng would come back to the United States and cooperate with this investigation, we would not have needed to issue all of these subpoenas. 80% of the subpoenas I have issued have been targeted to get information about a half-a-dozen individuals who have been implicated in this scandal and who have taken the Fifth to avoid testifying. Just to be clear -- more than 90 people have taken the Fifth or left the country. This is unprecedented. This should be a clear indication to people of the extent of the lawbreaking that occurred during the last campaign. Webster Hubbell At this point, I would like to say a few things about the release of the Webster Hubbell prison tapes. First, Webster Hubbell was the Associate Attorney General of the United States. He was hand picked by President Clinton to serve as one of the highest law-enforcement officers in the land. Within a year, he was forced to resign in disgrace because of a criminal investigation into fraud at his law firm. He was eventually convicted and served 18 months in prison. Between the time he resigned and the time he was convicted, he received $700,000 in payments from friends and associates of the President -- for doing little or no work. $100,000 came from the Riady family of Indonesia -- owners of the Lippo Group. This payment came within a few days of 10 meetings at the White House -- some involving the President -- involving John Huang, James Riady and Webster Hubbell. Serious allegations have been made that this $700,000 was hush money meant to silence Mr. Hubbell. A criminal investigation is under way and Mr. Hubbell was just indicted for failure to pay almost $900,000 in taxes. The American people have a right to know what happened. They have a right to know why Mr. Hubbell received this money and what he did for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and people don't shell out $700,000 for nothing. You would expect that the President's hand-picked appointee to a powerful Justice Department position would be the first to volunteer to cooperate with a Congressional investigation. Instead Mr. Hubbell has taken the Fifth and remained silent. This has forced us to seek other sources of information. That is why I subpoenaed the prison tapes of Mr. Hubbell's phone conversations. Out of 150 hours of conversations, my staff prepared just over one hour for release to the public. Private conversations that had nothing to do with our investigation were screened out. What was contained in that hour of conversations raises troubling questions. Given the seriousness of the allegations, this material deserves to be on the public record. On these tapes, we hear Mrs. Hubbell say that she fears that she will lose her job at the Interior Department if Mr. Hubbell takes actions that will hurt the Clintons. We hear Mrs. Hubbell say that she feels she is being "squeezed" by the White House. Webster Hubbell states that he must "roll over one more time." These statements raise very disturbing questions about the conduct of the White House and the conduct of the Hubbells. The American people have a right to know the answers. Let me say just a couple of things about the charges of selective editing. Mistakes were made in the editing process. As Chairman, I take responsibility for those mistakes. But they were just that -- innocent mistakes. In the process of editing out 149 hours of personal conversations, the staff cut out a couple of paragraphs that should have been left in. Here are a few points to keep in mind: We are not talking about transcripts -- what were prepared were logs -- summaries of information on tapes -- they were not verbatim transcripts and they were never identified as such. Exculpatory statements about both Mrs. Clinton and other Clinton Administration officials were left in the logs. In one case, an exculpatory statement by Mr. Hubbell about Mrs. Clinton was underlined to highlight it. Tapes were never altered. This charge has been repeated time and time again by Democrats -- and it is false. Once the tapes were made public, reporters were allowed to listen to and record the appropriate sections of the tapes in their entirety. These sections included the statements about Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Hubbell that have been complained about. How can anyone argue that there was an intent to deceive when reporters were allowed to listen to the comments I have been accused of deleting?? Finally, in an effort to end once-and-for-all these charges of selective editing, I have released the tapes of these 50 conversations in their entirety. What I find most unfortunate is that this incident has detracted from the important facts about the Hubbell tapes -- that it appears that Mr. Hubbell and his wife were under a great deal of pressure to remain silent. She felt she was being squeezed by the White House. And he felt he had to "roll over one more time."This is something that absolutely must be investigated. It is something that the American people have an absolute right to know. Immunity This brings us to tomorrow's Committee meeting. Tomorrow, we will try to break through this stone wall by granting immunity to four witnesses. The Justice Department has agreed to immunity. They have been thoroughly consulted. The Justice Department has already immunized two of these witnesses themselves. There is no reason to oppose immunity. Yet 19 Democrats on the Government Reform Committee voted in lock-step to block immunity. They voted to prevent these witnesses from telling the truth to the American people. I want to tell the American people a little bit about who these witnesses are. Two of these witnesses were employees of Johnny Chung. They were involved in his conduit contribution schemes. They were involved in setting up many of his meetings at the White House and with other government officials. Kent La is a very important witness. He is a business associate of Ted Sioeng. He is the U.S. distributor of Red Pagoda Mountain cigarettes. Ted Sioeng has a major stake in these cigarettes. This is the best selling brand of cigarettes in China. It is the third largest selling cigarette in the world. This company is ownded by the Communist Chinese Government. It is a convenient way to get money into this country. Ted Sioeng and his associates gave $400,000 in contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Of that amount, Kent La gave $50,000. Every witness that we have spoken to says that if you want to understand Ted Sioeng, you must talk to Kent La. Kent La has invoked the Fifth Amendment. He will not testify without immunity. The Democrats have voted to block immunity and prevent him from testifying. I cannot for the life of me understand why they want to do that. This is not a partisan issue. Ted Sioeng didn't just give to Democrats, he gave to both sides. He gave $150,000 to Republican causes as well as to the Democrats. It seems very clear that most of this half-a-million dollars donated by Ted Sioeng and his associates came from the profits of selling Chinese cigarettes around the world. Kent La is the one individual who can tell us if that is true or not. I do not understand why my colleagues want to keep this witness from testifying and protect a major Communist Chinese Cigarette Company. Especially the gentleman from California, who has bee such a forceful advocate of reducing smoking here in the United States. We have a number of good Members on my Committee -- on both sides of the aisle. I think that we have conscientious Members -- both Democrat and Republican, who are outraged by some of the things that happened during the last election. I hope that all of my colleagues are thinking long and hard about their votes, and I hope that they will reconsider and support immunity tomorrow. Conclusion I have tried throughout this discussion to try to make clear to the American people that this is an investigation that has faced countless obstacles. We have faced obstruction from the White House. We have faced stalling from the Democratic National Committee We have faced noncooperation from foreign governments. We have had over 90 people take the Fifth or flee the country to avoid testifying. However, we will continue. There are very serious allegations of crimes that have been committed. The American people have a right to know what happened. I hope that tomorrow, we will start to tear down the stone wall by granting immunity to these four witnesses and getting their testimony. APPLAUSE!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Dan Burton's Point of Privilege speech (fwd) Date: 13 May 1998 14:37:18 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: http://www.house.gov/reform/finance/statemnt/pointpriv.htm Government Reform and Oversight Committee May 12, 1998 Point of Privilege: Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) I rise today to take a personal point of privilege and to discuss the Government Reform Committee's investigation into illegal campaign contributions and other crimes. My conduct as Chairman has been criticized by many of my Democratic colleagues. Those criticisms have been echoed in the press. So I am taking this point of personal privilege to lay out for the American people the facts about this investigation. The fact is that this Committee has been subjected to a level of stonewalling and obstruction that has never been seen by a Congressional investigation. This investigation has been stonewalled by the White House. This investigation has been stonewalled by the Democratic National Committee. This Committee has seen more than 90 witnesses either take the 5th or flee the country to avoid testifying -- more than 90. The fact that all of these people have invoked their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination is a pretty strong indication that a lot of crimes were committed. Tomorrow, the Committee will vote on immunity for four witnesses -- all of whom have previously invoked their right against self-incrimination. The Democrats on the Government Reform Committee have voted once to block immunity and keep these witnesses from testifying. I hope that tomorrow they will reconsider and vote to allow this investigation to move forward. This investigation has seen enough obstruction and enough stonewalling. Before tomorrow's vote, I want to lay out for the American people, what has happened in this investigation over the last year, the stalling and delaying tactics that have been used against us, and what has brought us to this point. I want to give a comprehensive summary of events, so I am not going to yield to my colleagues during this speech. I. Investigative Process and Obstructions I became Chairman of the Government and Reform and Oversight Committee in January 1997. The President said he would give his full cooperation to all Congressional investigations of illegal foreign fundraising. Why are we conducting this investigation? Because there is very strong evidence that crimes were committed. Let's take a look at some of the allegations that compelled us to begin the investigation: That the DNC had accepted millions of dollars in illegal foreign campaign contributions. That $3 million of the $4.5 million in contributions attributed to John Huang had to be returned because of suspicions about their origins. That the Chinese government had developed and implemented a plan to influence the elections in the United States. That Charlie Trie, a friend of the President's from Arkansas, had funneled close to $700,000 in contributions associated with a Taiwanese cult to the President's legal defense fund. That Charlie Trie's Macau-based benefactor had wired him in excess of $1 million from overseas banks. That Charlie Trie was behind roughly $600,000 in suspicious contributions to the Democratic National Committee. That Pauline Kanchanalak and her family funneled half-a-million dollars to the Democratic Party from Thailand. That Chinese gun merchants, Cuban drug smugglers, and Russian mob figures were being invited to intimate White House events with the President in exchange for large contributions. That the former Associate Attorney General received $700,000 from friends and associates of the president -- including $100,000 from the Riady family -- at a time that he was supposed to be cooperating with a criminal investigation. These are serious allegations of serious crimes. The Justice Department recently brought indictments against three of these individuals, and a fourth -- Johnnie Chung -- has pled guilty. In January, 1997, I sent letters to the White House requesting copies of all documents relating to the investigation. I asked for documents regarding John Huang, Charlie Trie, White House fundraisers, etc. I gave the White House a chance to cooperate. Chairman Clinger, who preceded me, had written to the White House in October of 1996 and requested all documents regarding John Huang. Press reports had indicated that the White House had already assembled these documents and had them in boxes before the end of 1996. The entire month of February passed, and we received only a trickle of documents from the White House. In March, it was clear that the White House was not going to comply voluntarily. The President had offered his cooperation at the beginning of the year, but the White House refused to turn over documents to the Committee. The White House campaign of stalling had begun. So I issued a subpoena for the documents. I held a meeting with the President's new White House Counsel -- Charles Ruff. Mr. Ruff assured me that the President would not assert executive privilege over any documents. The White House continued to resist turning over documents -- despite a lawful subpoena. Despite the earlier assurances, they told us they intended to claim executive privilege on over 60 documents that were relevant to the fundraising scandal. It had always been White House policy not to claim executive privilege whenever personal wrongdoing or potential criminal conduct was being investigated. President Clinton's own counsel, Lloyd Cutler, had reiterated this policy early in the Clinton Administration. But now, President Clinton was using executive privilege to block the investigation. The Month of April passed, and little or no progress had been made in getting the documents we had called for in the subpoena. This was more than four months after my first document request had been sent to the White House. In May, I was compelled to schedule a Committee meeting to hold White House Counsel Charles Ruff in contempt of Congress. More than four months had passed since I first asked for the President's cooperation in producing documents -- and there had been nothing but stalling. It was only with this sword hanging over their heads that the White House finally began to make efforts to comply with our subpoena. Mr. Ruff agreed to turn over all documents required by the subpoena within six weeks. He also agreed to allow Committee attorneys to review documents on their privilege log to determine if the Committee needed to have them. We reviewed those documents. We did need many of them. After months of stalling, we finally got some of them. By June, Mr. Ruff provided me with a letter stating that the White House had, "to the best of their knowledge," turned over every document in their possession required by the subpoena. We would find out later that this was not true. Partisan Attacks: All the while we were struggling to get documents from the White House, I was subjected to a steady stream of mudslinging and vicious personal attacks from Democratic operatives and others close to the President. The DNC, which at the time was resisting complying with our subpoena, was spending thousands of dollars conducting opposition research on my background to try to intimidate me. They produced a scurrilous 20 page report detailing every trip I had ever taken, the contributions I had received over the years, my financial disclosure statements, and anything else they could find. This document, which made outrageous and untrue accusations against me, was faxed around to reporters in an effort to drum up negative publicity about me and intimidate me. So much for cooperation with a legitimate Congressional investigation. In March, the week my Committee's budget was to be voted on by the House, a former Executive Director of the DNC made a slanderous accusation that I shook him down for campaign contributions. His accusation was printed on the front page of the Washington Post. His accusations, which are completely untrue and absurd on their face, became the subject of a Justice Department investigation. As it turns out, this individual -- Mark Siegel -- was a former Carter White House aide, a former DNC Executive Director, a Democratic fundraiser and a Democratic Lobbyist. More importantly, it became known later that he is a close friend and business associate of then White House attorney Lanny Davis. His accusations were clearly politically motivated and timed to hurt the chances for approval of our budget. So much for cooperation from the Democrats. Other sleazy accusations were being dished out to the press by anonymous Democratic agents. One reporter from my home state received derogatory information about me in an unmarked manilla envelope without any return address. One Washington reporter got an anonymous phone call and was told to go to a phone booth in the Rayburn Building and look in the back of the phone book. He went and found an envelope of defamatory information about me. This is the type of smear campaign that every Committee Chairman who has attempted to conduct oversight of the White House has been subjected to. They attempted to smear Chairman Jim Leach. They attempted to smear Chairman Bill Clinger. They attempted to smear Senator Al D'Amato. They attempted to smear Senator Fred Thompson. They even attempted to smear FBI Director Louis Freeh when he sought to convince the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel. What does this kind of behavior by the Democrat Party say to the American people? Is this cooperation? Were these smear campaigns orchestrated by the White House? That's something the American people deserve to know. The FBI and the White House: In February, 1997, my staff learned by reading the Washington Post that the White House had sought a briefing from the FBI about the evidence it had gathered about Chinese efforts to infiltrate our political system. For obvious reasons, the FBI resisted giving such a briefing -- the criminal investigation potentially implicated members of the White House staff. I learned from discussions with FBI Director Louis Freeh that, at a time that he was traveling in the Middle East, senior officials at the Justice Department attempted to provide this information about the ongoing criminal investigation to the White House -- a move that the FBI adamantly opposed. According to Director Freeh, when his staff learned that Justice Department lawyers were planning on giving this information to the White House, Director Freeh's Chief of Staff called him on his airplane halfway around the world in a last ditch effort to stop the transfer of this information, which could have potentially jeopardized the investigation. Director Freeh was forced to make an emergency phone call to the Attorney General from his plane in the Middle East to intervene and stop the process. When the Attorney General testified before our Committee in December, she told a different version of events. She testified that she initiated the call to Director Freeh on his airplane to consult with him about providing the information to the White House. However, when Director Freeh testified the next day, he confirmed that it was he who initiated the call after his staff warned him that the FBI was being circumvented so that sensitive information could be provided to the White House. Continuing Struggles with the White House Now let's get back to the White House. The stonewalling and obstruction from the White House did not stop following our agreement with Mr. Ruff. The letter I received in June, 1997 from Mr. Ruff assured me that "to the best of his knowledge," all documents relevant to our investigation had been provided to the Committee. Unfortunately, these assurances were hollow. Throughout the summer, boxes of "newly discovered" documents dribbled into the Committee offices. Often, when the documents contained damaging revelations, they were leaked to the press before being provided to the Committee. When this happened, the documents were normally given to reporters late on a Friday or over a busy weekend to try to deaden their impact on the American people. It was not unusual to receive documents pertaining to a White House or DNC employee shortly after that employee was deposed. This forced us on a continuing basis to consider redeposing witnesses, costing additional time and money. In the Senate, Senator Thompson faced the same obstacles. Last July, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee heard two days of testimony from DNC Finance Director Richard Sullivan. The evening following Sullivan's testimony, the White House delivered several boxes of documents shedding new light on Sullivan's activities. Senator Thompson was so infuriated that he canceled his agreement allowing the White House to provide documents voluntarily and issued his first subpoena to the White House. On August 1, more Richard Sullivan documents turned up at the Democratic National Committee. The DNC turned over several boxes of memos and handwritten notes from the filing cabinet in Sullivan's office. The idea that the DNC could have overlooked drawers and drawers of relevant documents right in Richard Sullivan's office strains credibility. The Senate was forced to redepose Sullivan. The final straw came in October, when the White House videotapes were discovered. The White House had in its possession close to one hundred videotapes of the President speaking and mingling with subjects of our investigation at DNC fundraisers and White House coffees. The President could be seen at White House fundraisers with John Huang, James Riady, Pauline Kanchanalak, Charlie Trie, and others. In one tape, the President can be seen being introduced at a fundraiser to Charlie Trie and several foreign businessmen as "the Trie Team." This was serious evidence that the White House had withheld from Congress and the Justice Department for over six months. Despite the fact that our subpoena clearly ordered the production of any relevant videotapes, the White House had, for six months, failed to reveal their existence. It was only under pressure from a Senate investigator, who had received a tip from a source, that the White House admitted to the existence of the tapes. In other words, they didn't turn over the fundraising tapes until their hand was caught in the cookie jar. Charles Ruff has said publicly that he was informed of the existence of the tapes on Wednesday, October 1. He met with Attorney General Reno on Thursday. He did not inform the Attorney General at that meeting that the tapes existed and that they had not been turned over to the Justice Department. I believe that he had an obligation to do so. This was a critical week. The Attorney General was in the process of deciding whether to seek appointment of an independent counsel. She had to make her decision on Friday, October 3 -- the next day. On Friday, the Attorney General released a letter declining to appoint an independent counsel. The tapes were not released to the Justice Department until the weekend. In other words, Mr. Ruff had a face-to-face meeting with the Attorney General, failed to disclose to her that the fundraising videotapes existed, and allowed her to make a very important decision on an independent counsel without having any knowledge of them. That is just wrong. The White House Database Investigation I called Charles Ruff and other attorneys from the White House Counsel's office to testify before our Committee in November to answer for their failure to produce these tapes. Under questioning from a Committee attorney, White House Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills admitted that she and White House Counsel Jack Quinn had withheld from the Committee for one year an important document related to the investigation of political uses of the White House Database. The document in question was a page of notes taken by a White House staffer that indicated the "President's desire to integrate"the White House database with the DNC's database. This document had a direct bearing on the Subcommittee's investigation. Cheryl Mills admitted that she had kept the document in a file in her office for over a year based on a legal sleight of hand. Her behavior in this instance was another in a long string of incidents that reflected the White House's desire to stall and delay Congressional investigations of its alleged misconduct. This kind of behavior is inexcusable for a White House Attorney and a public servant. It was not the only time the Subcommittee has faced obstructionism. The White House official most directly responsible for developing the controversial database was Marsha Scott. Committee attorneys had to attempt to depose Ms. Scott on three separate occasions to overcome her refusal to answer questions. In April, Ms. Scott was subpoenaed to attend a deposition. She arrived for the deposition, began answering questions, and then abruptly walked out of the deposition. This Committee has never seen a witness who was under subpoena walk out in the middle of a deposition. Subcommittee Chairman David McIntosh was forced to call an emergency meeting of the Subcommittee at 8:00 that evening to force Ms. Scott to return and answer the questions. This is typical of the kinds of obstructions this Committee has encountered I dealing with the White House. The White House strategy was accurately described in a recent New York Post editorial as "the four Ds: Deny, Delay, Denigrate and Distract." It is apparent that the White House's game plan has been to stall and obstruct legitimate investigations for as long as possible, and then criticize the length of the investigations. It has been fairly noted by a number of the leading editorial pages that if the President and his subordinates would simply cooperate and tell the truth, these investigations could be wrapped up quickly. The Government Reform Committee continued to have White House documents dribble in as late as last December -- six months after Charles Ruff had certified that they had provided everything. Trading Subpoenas with the Justice Department Since January of last year, I had been seeking information from the Justice Department about its investigation into allegations that the Government of Vietnam may have attempted to bribe Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to influence policy on the normalization of relations with Vietnam. The New York Times had reported that the Justice Department had received evidence of international wire transfers related to the case. Despite the fact that the Justice Department had closed the case, they were resisting providing any information to the Committee. On Tuesday, July 8, I sent a subpoena to the Justice Department for the information. Three days later, on Friday, July 11, my campaign received a subpoena from the Justice Department for five years of campaign records. Although Mr. Siegel had made his allegations against me in March, there had been no signs of any investigative activity within the Justice Department until I sent a subpoena to the Attorney General. Was this a case of retaliation? That is a question that the American people have a right to have answered. Obstruction from Overseas This Committee has faced obstructions from the White House -- that is obvious. It is also true that this Committee has faced serious obstructions from other governments. We tried to send a team of investigators to China and Hong Kong earlier this year. There are important witnesses that need to be interviewed to find out who was behind major wire transfers of money that wound up being funneled into campaigns. The Chinese government turned us down flat. We attempted to get information from the Bank of China about who originated wire transfers of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Charlie Trie, Ng Lap Seng, and others. The Bank of China told us that they are an arm of the Chinese government and that they would not comply with our subpoena. I wrote to the President and asked for his assistance to break through this logjam with the Chinese government. We have received no assistance whatsoever. Silence of the Witnesses: END: Part 1 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Sean Gabb - Re Decline of English Liberty (fwd) Date: 14 May 1998 08:04:19 PST >From Britain's Arch Libertarian..... On May 13, Sean Gabb wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] A completed text of my essay on the decline and fall of English liberty is now available at http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/liberty2.htm Comments welcome Sean Gabb -- Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | [------------------------- 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: Charge in Ruby Ridge Case Dismissed (fwd) Date: 15 May 1998 13:37:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is a very sorry day for "justice" in this country. ----- BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- A federal judge today dismissed state involuntary manslaughter charges against FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi, who killed the wife of white separatist Randy Weaver during the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge accepted the Justice Department argument that Horiuchi was acting in the line of duty when he fired and was protected by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, in that he was working within the scope of his job. Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury charged Horiuchi last August with firing the shot that went through the cabin door and killed Vicki Weaver as she held her baby daughter. It was the third death in the 11-day standoff that began when federal marshals maneuvering around the isolated mountain cabin trying to arrest Weaver on a gun charge encountered Weaver's son, Samuel, and his dog. An exchange of gunfire left the 14-year-old boy and Deputy Marshal William Degan dead. Woodbury maintained Horiuchi acted negligently. Horiuchi contended throughout that he was following the procedures set out for dealing with the Ruby Ridge confrontation. ``I think it's a travesty the people of Idaho can't have their day in court with Lon Horiuchi because he's a federal agent,''said Chuck Peterson, one of the attorney's who represented Weaver during the criminal case against him five years ago. ``That seems absurd,'' Peterson said. ``This clearly isn't a vindication of Horiuchi. It's like the Simpson verdict. We all knew he did it. There's just nothing we can do about it.'' Woodbury did not immediately respond to a telephone call requesting comment. But Robert Huntley, the former Idaho Supreme Court justice who was one of the attorneys representing Horiuchi, speculated that an appeal was unlikely. ``I would be surprised if there was anyone who would want to put up the money for an appeal because the judge wrote a very carefully thought-out opinion based on factual circumstances,'' Huntley said. Weaver, who is now living in Montana and writing a book about the incident, and associate Kevin Harris were acquitted of all federal charges, including murder, resulting from the siege. A state charge of murder against Harris filed last August was dismissed under the double jeopardy protection. Another Horiuchi attorney, Patricia Maher, maintained the agent fired with the understanding that Harris was holding a rifle outside the cabin, that Harris was a suspect in Degan's killing and that Harris might open fire on an FBI helicopter that was circling overhead at the time. And the fact that he was charged with involuntary manslaughter meant he acted without malice, she said. The U.S. Justice Department decided in 1994 against prosecuting Horiuchi, or any of his FBI superiors and reaffirmed the decision last year. Larry Potts, once the FBI's No. 2 official, and his chief aide, Danny Coulson, were accused of destroying records to cover up the identity of the official that allowed agents to shoot at any adult male seen outside the Weaver cabin. Potts was suspended and ultimately denied the bureau's No. 2 job. E. Michael Kahoe, former chief of the violent crimes section, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for destroying a report criticizing the bureau's role in the shootout. A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal government is pending. Weaver filed a similar lawsuit, which last year resulted in a $3.1 million settlement. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton's global crime plan (fwd) Date: 15 May 1998 13:37:34 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980514.btl.clinton.global..html =20 WorldNetDaily Thursday, May 14, 1998 Clinton's global crime plan=20 By Joseph Farah The Clinton administration this week announced a comprehensive plan to target the growing power of sophisticated international organized crime syndicates.=20 It's called the International Crime Control Strategy, which identifies the major global threats to the United States as drug trafficking, acquisition or sale of weapons of mass destruction by criminal, the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to rogue foreign states and trafficking in women and children.=20 Drug trafficking? Transfer of sensitive technology? Trafficking in women? These are certainly areas in which the Clinton administration has expertise. He has long associated with drug dealers, even pardoning one as governor, and his connections to activity at Mena Airport in Arkansas has long been a matter of suspicion. As president he was responsible for perhaps the single most serious transfer of sensitive technology since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, with his approval of the sale of missile guidance systems to China. And, as far as trafficking in women, does it count when it's for your own use?=20 Seriously, folks, if I didn't know better I would think this plan, announced at this moment, was a practical joke -- an idea worthy of "Saturday Night Live."=20 If the administration is serious about stamping out organized crime, it could begin by cleaning out its own house. Here's just a partial, quickie list of the felony convictions in and around Bill Clinton since he took office: Webster Hubbell, Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, David Hale, Robert W. Palmer, Chris Wade, Neal T. Ainley, Henry Espy, Michael Brown, Eugene Lum, Nora Lum and Johnny Chung.=20 Then there are those indicted or targeted for indictment: Ron Brown, Herby Branscum, Mike Espy, Henry Cisneros, Archie Schaefer, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia, Nolanda Hill, Bruce Babbitt, Ron Carey, Monica Lewinsky and Webster Hubbell (again).=20 Then come the executive privilege claims: Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton, Secret Service agents and James Hamilton.=20 Let's not forget about Clinton's criminal associates -- from Jorge Cabrera to Dan Lasater to Wang Jun.=20 And, perhaps, the biggest benchmark of criminal conspiracy -- the Fifth Amendment pleadings and refusal to answer under oath: Susan McDougal, Susan Thomases, Webster Hubbell (again), Maggie Williams, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Clinton, John Huang, Johnny Chung, David Wang, Keshi Zhan, Gin F.J. Chen, Siuw Moi Lian, Yi Chu, Mark Middleton, Seow Fong Ooi, Bin Ue Jeng, Hsiu Chu Lin, Larry Wong, Duangnet Kronenberg, Jen Chin Hsueh, Na-chi "Nancy" Lee, Chi Rung Wang, Hueutsan Huang, Jou Sheng, Yue Chu, Yogesh Ghandi, Judy Hsu, Man Ho, Steven Hwang, Jane Dewi Tahir, Manlin Foung, Gilbert Colon, Maria Mapili, Yumei Yang, Irene Wu, Jie Su Hsaio, Mike Lin, Hsiu Luan Tseng, Hsin Chen Shi, Zie Pan Huang, Mark Jiminez, Shu Jen Wu, Michael Brown, Woody Hwang, Charles Intriago, Simon Chen, Sioeng Fei Man, Jessica Elinitiarta, Kent La, Craig Livingstone.=20 Speaking of international criminal syndicates, there are the foreign witnesses refusing to answer: Ng Lap Seng, Stephan Riady, Roy Tirtadji, Ken Hsui, John Mucy, James Lin, Eugene Wu, Mochtar Riady, Stanley Ho, Suma Ching Hai, James Riady, Daniel Wu, Ambrose Hsuing, Lay Kweek Wie, Li Kwai Fai, Bruce Cheung.=20 And, of course, those avoiding testimony by fleeing the country: Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ming Chen, Antonio Pan, John H.K. Lee, Aug Setiawan, Ted Sioeng, Dewi Tirto, Subandi Tanuwidjaja, Sorya Wiriadinata, Felix Ma, Susanto Tanuwidjaja, Suryant Tanuwidjaja, Subandi Tanuwidjaja, Yanti Ardi, Nanny Nitiarta, Yopie Elnitiarta, Maureen Elinitiarta, Sandra Elinitiarta, Sundari Elnitiarta.=20 Of course, there are lots more name we could add -- the suicides, the murders, the accident victims, those who have been harassed and intimidated for daring to cross the administration. ... It all begins to look suspiciously like a pattern of racketeering, organized crime, a mob-style operation.=20 My first thought upon reading of Clinton's plan is that the initiative sounds more like a way to rub out the competition. It sounds like there's going to be a good, old-fashioned gang war.=20 If I were an international organized crime figure not paying sufficient tribute to Don Clinton, I'd be nervous. It looks like the Godfather is getting ready to make a move.=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.=20 =20 =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: Subject: NYT: Chung says money for Democrats came from China's Peoples Liberation Army (fwd) Date: 15 May 1998 13:37:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [ From ACECWW ... said to be from the AP Wire ] The New York Times Friday, May 15, 1998 Democrat Fund-Raiser Said to Name China Tie This article is based on reporting by Jeff Gerth, David Johnston and Don Van Natta and was written by Jeff Gerth. WASHINGTON -- A Democratic fund-raiser has told Federal investigators he funneled tens of thousands of dollars from a Chinese military officer to the Democrats during President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, according to lawyers and officials with knowledge of the Justice Department's campaign finance inquiry. The fund-raiser, Johnny Chung, told investigators that a large part of the nearly $100,000 he gave to Democratic causes in the summer of 1996 -- including $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee -- came from China's People's Liberation Army through a Chinese lieutenant colonel and aerospace executive whose father was General Liu Huaqing, the officials and lawyers said. General Liu was then not only China's top military commander but also a member of the top leadership of the Communist Party. Chung said the aerospace executive, Liu Chao-ying, told him the source of the money. At one fund-raiser to which Chung gained admission for her, she was photographed with President Clinton. A special adviser to the White House counsel, Jim Kennedy, said today, "We had no knowledge about the source of Chung's money or the background of his guest. In hindsight it was clearly not appropriate for Chung to bring her to see the President." Chung's account, coupled with supporting documents such as bank records, is the first direct evidence obtained by the Justice Department that elements of the Chinese Government made illegal contributions to the Democratic Party. Under American law, foreign governments are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns. While the amount described is a tiny part of the $194 million that Democrats raised in 1996, investigators regard the identification of Liu as a breakthrough in their long search for confirmation of a "China Plan." The hunt was prompted by secret telephone intercepts suggesting that Beijing considered covertly influencing the American elections. Chung, a Southern California businessman, began cooperating with investigators after he pleaded guilty in March to campaign-related bank and tax fraud. He is the first defendant in the Justice Department inquiry to agree to cooperate. It is not clear whether other Chinese officials or executives were involved in the purported payments by Liu, or what her motivation or the Chinese military's might have been. At the time, President Clinton was making it easier for American civilian communication satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets, a key issue for the P.L.A. and for Liu's company, which sells missiles for the military and also has a troubled space subsidiary. The President's decision was valuable to Liu for enabling her company to do more business with American companies, but it had also been sought by American aerospace corporations, including Loral Space and Communications and the Hughes Electronics Corporation, a subsidiary of the General Motors Corporation, seeking to do more business in China. It is not known, however, whether anyone in the Democratic Party or the Clinton Administration had reason to suspect the source of the contributions from Chung. A lawyer for Chung, Brian A. Sun, declined to comment on his client's conversations with investigators, citing his client's sealed plea agreement with the Justice Department. "I'm shocked that sources at the Justice Department would attribute anything like that to my client." Chung has denied being an agent of the Chinese Government. "Nor did Chung ever try to lobby the American Government on any type of issue involving technology or anything else," Sun said. A National Security Council spokesman, Eric Rubin, said, "It is ludicrous to suggest there was any influence on the determination of U.S. policy on this matter." He said he did not know whether any executives from Liu's company expressed an interest in the issue. Liu did not return a message left with her office in Hong Kong today. Chung's revelations have opened an avenue of inquiry leading in a diplomatically sensitive direction: next month, Clinton goes to Beijing, where he hopes to announce increased space cooperation between China and the United States. A representative of the Chinese Government denied that Beijing was behind the purported contributions. "China has always abided by the laws and regulations in this country," said Yu Shu-ning, a press counselor for the Chinese embassy. "We have nothing to do whatsoever with political contributions in this country." Chung, an American citizen who was born in Taiwan, owned a floundering facsimile company in Torrance, Calif. He became involved with the Democratic Party in early 1995 through Asian-American contacts at the White House and was known for constantly trying to use his connections in Washington with Chinese Government officials and executives. Despite being labeled a "hustler" by one Presidential aide in 1995, Chung managed to visit the White House at least 49 times. He and his company contributed $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee -- most of it before he met Liu. The full amount was later returned after questions were raised about Democratic fund-raising. A Democratic National Committee spokesman, Richard W. Hess, said, "We did not know and had no way of knowing the source of his funds." Chung met Liu in June 1996 in Hong Kong. She was not only a lieutenant colonel in the military, but a senior manager and vice president in charge of international trading for China Aerospace International Holdings Ltd., according to the company's 1996 annual report. The company is the Hong Kong arm of China Aerospace Corporation, a state-owned jewel in China's military industrial complex with interests in satellite technology, missile sales and rocket launches. Liu's father, General Liu, was China's senior military officer, and as vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission was in charge of China's drive to modernize the People's Liberation Army by selling weapons to other countries and using the hard currency to acquire Western technology. In that role, he oversaw his country's missile deals. In addition to his military role, General Liu was a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Communist Party, the very top circle of political leadership in China. He retired from his official positions last fall at the time of the Party's 15th Congress. China Aerospace sells satellites, launches them and owns a large chunk of a Hong Kong satellite operator, but the financial viability of many of these ventures depends on American satellites. In 1996 President Clinton made it easier for American satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets. The decision was announced in March but due to delays did not take effect until election day. As Liu began her relationship with Chung, her company and her father were trying to fix China's troubled rocket program. That spring, China Aerospace had brought in outside experts, including officials from Hughes and Loral to help analyze why a launch the previous February had failed. The Pentagon later concluded that the outside review harmed American national security by advancing China's rocket and missile capabilities. Both companies denied wrongdoing. In 1991 and 1993 the United States barred all American companies from doing business with two China Aerospace units who had made illegal missile sales to Pakistan. In each instance, Liu was assistant to the president of the sanctioned company. Writing about who in China may have benefited from the 1991 missile deal, former Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d, in his memoirs, said, "In all probability, several senior government and party officials or their families stood to gain from the performance of those contracts." The sons and daughters of China's elite -- sometimes referred to as "princelings" -- have developed lucrative businesses based on their family connections. The missile deals were part of General Liu's strategy of selling Chinese weapons to other countries to raise money to acquire Western technology. "Liu was a proponent of P.L.A. modernization who was very much interested in obtaining Western technology," said retired Rear Adm. Eric A. McVadon, the American defense attache in Beijing in the early 1990's. He said Liu constantly rebuffed American concerns about China's weaponry sales. Those concerns were front and center in 1996, when General Liu was still in charge of the P.L.A. They included China's sale of missiles to Iran and of nuclear equipment to Pakistan, as well as its own bellicose military maneuvers near Taiwan. Liu, McVadon recalled, was a "gladhander" who "brokered deals." In 1990 she was granted a visa to visit the United States as a representative of a China Aerospace subsidiary. At the first meeting between Chung and Liu in June 1996, Chung is said to have told investigators, Liu told him she was interested in again visiting the United States. Soon learning that Chung could arrange meetings with the President, she expressed an interest in meeting Clinton. Chung helped Liu obtain a visa on July 11, 1996, according to a law enforcement official. Five days later, he wrote the Democratic National Committee that he wanted to bring Liu and a Chinese medical executive to a July 22 fund-raising dinner to be held at the Brentwood, Calif., home of the financier Eli Broad. Both of his guests' names were placed on the guest list after Chung wrote a check for $45,000 to the Democratic National Committee on July 19. A week later, Chung set up a California corporation for Liu and himself, records show. Liu arrived in Los Angeles on July 21, and the next day Chung accompanied her to two fund-raising events attended by Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. The first was an early evening $1,000-per-plate gala at the Beverly Hilton. Later that night, Chung and Liu attended a $25,000-per-couple dinner at Broad's home that raised more than $1.5 million for the Democrats. The President was photographed with Liu, a routine courtesy at such events. Sun, Chung's lawyer, said, "I don't think she was any different from any of his business contacts -- they thought Johnny was influential and someone they would like to know as they furthered their business dealings in the United States." The previous year, photos from another Chung visit with Clinton had caused a problem. The President had expressed concerns about some of Chung's Chinese business clients -- unrelated to Liu -- whom the fund-raiser brought to a March 1995 radio address by Clinton. Clinton's director of Oval Office operations, Nancy Hernreich, in testimony taken by Senate investigators, said Clinton told her later the visit shouldn't have happened. She took that to mean that Clinton thought Chung's clients were "inappropriate foreign people." Friday, May 15, 1998 Copyright 1998 The New York Times ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: forwarded essay on Ruby Ridge (fwd) Date: 15 May 1998 14:57:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by John Wallace I saw this on another list, and thought it was worth forwarding. I don't know the author personally, but I told him he should try to get this published in the mainstream press somewhere >>>>>>> "Just yesterday morning they let me know you were gone Suzanne, the plans they made put an end to you. Woke up this mornin' and I wrote down the song. Just can't remember who to send it to. O, I've seen fire and I've see rain. Seen sunny days, I thought would never end. Seen lonely times when I could not find a friend But I always thought that I'd see you again." from "Fire and Rain" by James Taylor It's not a girl, but the America of my youth. It's not a song, but simply scattered thoughts. Still, the feeling is the same emptiness, and I am at a loss as to where they might best be directed. Vicki Weaver died in the doorway of an Idaho cabin. Lon Horiuchi, an FBI HRT team member, launched the bullet that killed her. Horiuchi's supervisors issued orders that can be called suspicious, at best. No one disputes these facts. The people of the United States understand and accept the law enforcement is a potentially dangerous occupation. They understand that there are a lot of "crazies" out there who may or may not directly threaten the public and their law enforcement agents. People understand that lethal force is sometimes necessary in defense of self or another life. People also understand that when lethal force is used, there is the potential for accidental injury or death. Law enforcement officers (along with others) have to make split second decisions in pressure packet moments. When they do everything right, its "just part of the job." When mistakes are made, by agents or their supervisors, then there is a lot of second guessing. Sometimes such "mistakes" are mere accidents for which there is no criminal liability. Sometimes the "mistakes" are negligent and subject to penalties of law. When a questionable incident occurs, we have systems in place to deal with them. In the America of my youth, I was told that each person was equal before the law-- that each person-- rich, poor, or in between; black, white, brown, yellow or red; liberal or conservative; male or female-- was equally responsible for their actions. The key to this equality was a trial by a jury of one's peers. They would examine the facts, if not the law, and determine whether or not actions were reasonable, or at least lawful or unlawful, according to the standards of our society. It seems that I was misinformed. When the gunsmoke and heat of the moment cleared on Ruby Ridge, the judicial system went into operation. Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were tried for murder and a host of lesser charges. A jury of their peers judged the facts of several years of law enforcement strategy, tactics and implementation, along with Weaver and Harris response. After consideration of all that had been done, Weaver and Harris were acquitted of all charges, save one count of failing to respond to a summons. Law enforcement was censured by the judge for abusing the system, including falsifying and withholding evidence. The results of the trial caused a number of people to suspect that something was wrong. The issue came before Congress who held televised hearings on "the incident at Ruby Ridge." They came to the conclusion that something was terribly wrong. FBI and ATF officials promised reform. The Department of Justice settled a civil suit with the Weavers, paying $3.1 million dollars, without admitting fault. So far, so good. But Vicki Weaver is still dead. Everyone seems to affirm that her death was a wrongful act. Wrongful acts causing death are illegalities subject to criminal, not civil, penalties. What crime was committed-- murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide-- was a matter for the technicalites of the law. Whether the actions were justified were issues to be determined by the facts of the case-- the job of the jury. Whether Lon Horiuchi was the guilty party or whether he acted reasonably in following what Congress called "unlawful rules of engagement" was an issue to be determined-- by a jury. The calendar pages turned. The Department of Justice refused to prosecute. Finally, the case was settled at the Federal level with no criminal action perceived or prosecuted. The People of the State of Idaho then took up the challenge. A local prosecutor submitted facts to a Grand Jury. They found cause to indict. The matter would be brought to trial. The facts were simple as stated above. Vicki Weaver was dead. Lon Horiuchi directly caused the death. It happened in Idaho. No person is above the law. And then we learn that we are wrong. Some people are. Federal agents "in the performance of their duties" are not subject to state laws. Such is an act of Congress. There was a time when "federal agents" had no duty within the boundaries of a state, except to deliver the mail! Now we find an entire class of people not subject to state action-- people exempted from the law. Part of this makes sense. Consider laws regulating the carrying of a concealed weapon. There are a patchwork of such laws, differing in every state. If FBI agents are required by their job descriptions to carry weapons, it would make no sense for them to be subject to arrest in states which did not allow weapons to be carried. (Whether such laws should be on the books is another discussion.) The intent of Congress' exemption from state law may be reasonable in some cases. But a blanket exemption from all criminal law is another matter all together. As a local police officer said, "Every federal agent thinks he's "f**king James Bond, with a license to kill. If they do, there's not a d**ned thing we can do about it. It's been that way for years." The police know this, but its news to me, and I suspect, to most of the public." Apparently the court actions in the Ruby Ridge case are exceptional only in the fact that the State of Idaho tried to take action in this wrongful death. A federal judge moved the action from state court to a federal court where the charges were dropped. Whether Horiuchi got off with murder (or manslaughter or negligent homicide) will never be determined. He may have committed no crime in the eyes of the jury, but we will never know. Horiuchi will live under a cloud of thwarted process for the rest of his life, and the citizens of this nation will be left living with the knowledge that there is no recourse for wrongs done to them by federal agents unless the federal government decides to punish its own. Somehow the punishment often meted out in "days off," letters of censure, demotions, transfers and forced retirements fall far short of "equality under the law." If anyone else was found guilty of taking a life, the penalties would be much more severe. I am an amateur student of history. I cannot help but recall the "long train of abuses" listed in the Declaration of Independence. Some of them are recalled to mind as yesterday's decision was announced: "He (King George) has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing to assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. For protecting them by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states. For depriving us, in many cases of the benefit of trial by jury. For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering, fundamentally, the forms of our governments." King George acted not alone. Generally, Parliment and the king's judges acted with him in unison. They acted under the color of English law. It all looked official, but the colonist could look at the results. They didn't like what they saw. It didn't pass the "smell test," in spite of what they were told. The colonist were fed the line that they were "free Englishmen," but as they looked at their lives, they could see the limits on their freedom. They were free to do the will of the King. No regime enforces penalties for absolute obedience to the whims and wishes of the powers that be. What we are discovering is that the States, which created the Federal government, have lost all illusions of sovereignty. We live by the good will of the Federal government. All power is now invested in the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court. States are legally powerless, and citizens have no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apart from the whim and will of Federal officials. The people and the States who were to be a check against federal abuse are being systematically stripped of their power to effectively resist anything. The reality is our not so secret agents have a license to kill. And there is nothing we can do about it short of revolt. That revolt may come at the polls. It may not come at all. For the Founders of this nation, that day came, but we are different people and this is a different time. We may be willing to accept such abuse in stride, check the stock market figures, weigh the benefits of life in this society against the uncertainties of change, and continue with the lives we live, but we will never be able to think of ourselves as free. Perhaps we never were. Maybe, the America of my youth never really was. Certainly, it is now gone, and it never had a chance to say goodbye. "Just yesterday morning, they let me know you were gone. America, the plans they made put and end to you. Woke up this morning and I wrote down these thoughts. Just can't remember who to send them to O, I've seen fire and I've seen rain Seen sunny days I thought would never end Seen lonely times when I could not find a friend But I always thought I'd see you again" Walter Lee -- 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: Horiuchi poll on the net (fwd) Date: 15 May 1998 13:32:23 PST On May 15, Rich Zellich wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.newsindex.com has a poll running: Do you agree with the decision to dismiss the charges against...[Horiuchi]? Current tally is 6.81% Yes 93.19% No Good numbers! -Rich [if you see this in time to vote, the poll dialogue is at the very bottom of the left-hand navigation frame] [------------------------- 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: Good old Janet Part II (fwd) Date: 15 May 1998 13:33:57 PST On May 15, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I read the following statement and then re-read the executive order lists and shudder. Josh >> Subject: Cults and Government >> >> Just ran across this quote from AG Janet Reno. From a person of such high >> power, these are scary words. --------- >> >> "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second >> Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high >> level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their >> children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the >> Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may<<< >> qualify [a person as a cultist] but certainly more than one [of these]<<< >> would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being >> in a risk situation that qualified for government interference." >> >> -Attorney General Janet Reno, Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994 > > "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights." Major General Smedley Butler USMC 1930 winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor [------------------------- 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: Fw: Framing The Terms Date: 15 May 1998 21:08:11 -0400 >Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:37:29 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Fw: Framing The Terms=20 >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > > > >------------------------ > From: jrwent@earthlink.net > Subject: Framing The Terms=20 > Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 20:17:43 -0700=20 > > > >Framing The Terms > > >Like many of you, I get vexed about how we -- those who support our >Nation=B9s Constitution, and the ideas upon which it was founded -- >constantly appear to be the recipients of slanderous remarks from elitists >who believe they have attained Nirvana and further believe that we are >imbeciles for not following their leadership. Our ideas are continually >maligned by the innuendo and direct aspersions of these people. They are >very effective at using catchy labels to frame our position while we have >simply tried to counter their wild, irresponsible accusations with rational >arguments leading to well-deliberated conclusions. > >In spite of our attempts to provide rationality to the issues we many times >appear to be losing the battle for the hearts and minds of middle America >because our opponents -- with media support -- persist in using sound bites >that provoke a visceral effect against our cause. Our opponents don=B9t= talk >in terms of the academia or the judicatory when they malign us to the >public, but we sometimes respond in that manner in our own defense, and >when we do we are not understood by the vast majority of people in this >nation who have a problem reading the Sunday comics. We find ourselves >attempting to defend our position in an argument where the terms and >definitions have been outlined by our opponents in feeling, not logic. >Therefore a difficult task is made even more arduous because we allow >ourselves to be placed in a position of using terms whose definition has >been delineated by our adversary. We end up defending our doctrine against >the terms defined by our antagonists rather than conveying our beliefs on >the argument itself. This happens over and over again and yet we continue >to allow ourselves to be brought into discussions wherein the language used >is terms defined by the opposition. The following are some of the terms to >which I refer: > >=B3Saturday Night Special=B2 >=B3Cop Killer Bullets=B2 >=B3Assault Weapons=B2 >=B3Weapons Of Mass Destruction=B2 >=B3Designed Only For Killing People=B2 >=B3Sniper Rifle=B2 >=B3High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Systems=B2 >=B3Hair Trigger=B2 >=B3Easily Accessible Firearms=B2 >=B3Unregistered Firearm=B2 >=B3Dum Dum Bullets=B2 >=B3No Sporting Purpose=B2 >+ a bunch more that slip my mind at this point. > >As you read down that list it is very likely that each of those terms >brought some image to your mind or evoked some gut reaction in you at some >level. Why?? Why the reaction?? Some of those terms bring forth images >that define a natural reaction against the item; like =B3Cop Killer= Bullets=B2. >Other terms that we may have used in everyday language have been so skewed >in their meaning over the years by our opponents that they now have a >different meaning than they originally had, like =B3Saturday Night= Special=B2, >which I always thought was a pretty good weekend price on beer and pizza. > >The point is that we, as a group who support the Constitution and firearms >ownership as defined by our Founders, must start defining the terms of the >debate from our perspective. We must take the battle to our adversaries >using terms that we define; terms that put them on the defensive. We must >start paying attention to how we phrase things, and especially make efforts >to define terms that bring about the desired visceral effect in people who >are open to impression on these issues and get most of their news in >broadcast media sound bites. > >Not only must we define these terms, we also must come up with some >mechanism to get these terms into the national mainstream. This is where >our opponents do so well. They pick up on these little catch phrases and >pass them around among themselves, and then start getting them into media >sound bites, and before you know it everyone is using their terms - >including us !! > >This situation must be reversed. We must all strive, by whatever means we >have available, to put those who would deprive us of our liberties into a >defensive posture that requires them to explain their position with regard >to our ideas and terms. Yes, we must continue to offer cogent arguments >that support our position. We have, thank goodness, more and more very >capable people who continue to join our camp on these issues. We must >always continue to bring good, dedicated people into this conflict on our >side. We must, however, strive to get all of those who support us to not >only continue in the vein they are currently in but also to start thinking >about the terms they use in framing their arguments. If the terms we use >can be sharpened to paint a mental picture that elicits a positive >portrayal of our position, or a negative portrayal of our opponent=B9s >position, then we can start to present arguments that not only hold up in >courts of law, but also the court of public opinion. I, for one, think it >is worth a try. > >We can make it work by passing around ideas. There are a lot of us who are >very sharp people who will, hopefully, start using our individual and >collective wits to outwit the opposition on a very basic and effective >level. But we need some mechanism to get this into the legal, legislative, >and medical communities, the news media, and to pass this information >around the Nation quickly so the terms that are introduced can get wide >spread dissemination. The idea is to pass ideas, and not necessarily for >anyone in particular to say that this idea is good and that one is bad. >Perhaps a consensus on some terms can be reached at some level. I don=B9t >know. This is just an idea I have. I hope someone out there in cyberspace >agrees that it is a good one and will pick up the ball and run with it. >Perhaps someone out there is willing to be the repository, collection, and >dissemination point for this effort. Organizations that are experienced in >the battle for our rights have the know-how and the wherewithal to put this >together on a national level and make it work. There is nothing wrong with >the major organizations working to accomplish their own objectives, BUT... >on this one point of "Framing The Terms" all of the major, and minor, >associates on our side of this debate must achieve a unified front if this >effort is to have any effect what-so-ever. The NRA, GOA, LEAA, LSAS, JPFO, >etc..etc..etc. must each make a positive step in this effort and start >talking with each other regarding the terminology we use. We also need >mechanisms to get it to those who can get it into sound bites. I=B9ll be >happy to act as the initial point of contact to get it started but someone >else is needed to sustain it. > >I can offer a some suggestions for terms to consider, unfortunately I don= =B9t >know who first coined many of these. If some of these ideas sound >sophomoric to you then get off your duff and come up with some of your own. > >1. Always refer to a gun control advocate as a =B3Victim Disarmament >Extremist=B2 or =B3Predator Advocate=B2 > >2. We should refer to ourselves as being =B3ProChoice AND ProLife=B2 on= the >firearms issue. Or take the sting out of it and call yourself a: =B3Self >Defense Advocate=B2 > >3. Gun control of ANY nature should be viewed as a =B3CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE= =B2 in >addition to any other manner in which it is addressed. > >4. Firearms registration or firearms owner registration touted by the >=B3freedom hating left=B2 should be viewed as =B3Pre-Confiscation= Initiatives=B2 > >5. Inexpensive handguns (Saturday Night Specials) are =B3Economically= Viable >Protection=B2 or simply =B3Affordable Protection=B2. Attempts to outlaw >inexpensive firearms for defensive use should be viewed as an effort to >deprive the less fortunate or economically challenged of their CIVIL RIGHTS >because it deprives these people of the most effective means to defend >themselves and their families against predators of all kinds. > >6. Firearms training is =B3Life Assurance Training=B2 or maybe =B3Family= Self >Defense Training=B2 > >7. Concealed carry license can be =B3Predator Neutralization License=B2 or >=B3Family Life Assurance License=B2 or "Victim Protection Measures" or= "Threat >Reduction Measures. While we're at it... why do we as a people even >tolerate our government licensing us to carry the tool that is most >effective in protecting the well-being of ourselves and our families. We >should have a Vermont-style right to carry and protect ourselves. Isn't >that, in fact, what our Founders intended??? Why do we keep voting in >representatives who support "Innocent Victim Disarmament". > >8. Expand upon the GOA premise that =B3Guns Save Lives=B2. They do... We >know it... Let=B9s talk about it - IN PUBLIC!! Every pro-gun organization >in existence should be on this bandwagon!!! GUNS SAVE LIVES !!! > >9. Always refer to the bad guys as =B3Predators=B2 along with other >appropriate pejorative terms like =B3thieves=B2, =B3rapists=B2, etc. > >10. Firearms owner lists in government possession are: =8CRound Up Lists= =B2 or >"Pre-Holocaust Victim Identification Lists". > >11. Any government-required fee for firearms licenses, Brady-type checks, >etc. should be referred to as a =B3Another Gun Tax=B2, =B3Civil Rights >Violations=B2, =B3Firearms Infringement=B2 > >12. Charlton Heston (of =B3Moses=B2 & >=B3people-shouldn=B9t-be-able-to-own-AK-47-type-weapons=B2 fame) FINALLY= got it >right recently when he referred to Barbara Streisand as the =B3Hanoi Jane= =B2 of >the anti-gun movement. > >13. Eddy Eagle should become a National Hero. Other similar symbols for >firearms safety or freedoms should be developed and/or expanded upon. JPFO >has a very good series that should be brought into the mainstream. This >information is needed now in our "Youth Propaganda Camps", commonly called >public schools. Every pre-puberty kid in the Nation should know who these >symbols are and the positive side of what they represent. Our kids are >this Nation=B9s future and we continue to allow the fanatical left, >victim-disarmament teacher's unions to indoctrinate our children into >believing that guns are bad and so are the people who own them. > >14. Those in the opposition should be referred to as screwballs, >crackpots, extremists, etc. Although I don=B9t normally agree with calling >anyone names but it may get mainstream people thinking that we do have a >valid point. I, for one, certainly am of the opinion that many of the >Hollywood elite, who donate millions to efforts that would negate our Bill >of Rights, can and should be referred to as =B3crackpot elitist= extremists=B2. > >15. Let=B9s face it... Jim Brady getting shot was a tragedy. An even= larger >tragedy is that Sara Brady has become quite wealthy from cynical >exploitation of his misfortune. Additionally, her efforts have helped >build an empire on the bodies of those innocent victims who were denied >access to defensive firearms because of Brady checks, mandatory waiting >periods, and the defeat of concealed carry legislation that she has been >instrumental in effecting. As a community dedicated to restoring and >maintaining our liberties how can we give Sara Brady a free pass to >continue her =B3Victim Disarmament=B2 work without calling her to task for= it >at every opportunity??? She is getting rich making speeches to outlaw our >freedoms and yet we seldom see anything in print anywhere that says this is >happening. Why? (QUOTABLE QUOTES: "Our task of creating a socialist >America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally >disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard >Metzanbaum, "The National Educator," January 1994, Page 3. (unverified >information provided to me, recently)" > >16. Gun control legislation is literally: =B3Job Safety For Criminals=B2= or >=B3The Safe Streets For Criminals Act/Bill/Law/Regulation=B2 > >We ALL need to get together on this effort. I'm sure that some of the >descriptive phrases we glean from this will be worth the effort, both to >our cause and to our funny-bone. > >Maybe this epistle will get the ball rolling. Hopefully this will spark >some interest in getting the scoreboard numbers up in our favor by >establishing a system that offers coordination of =B3reasonable terms=B2= that >can be used within this debate. If everyone takes a few minutes to think >about this I=B9m sure we=B9ll have some terms to use that will gain the >initiative and turn the tide. Give this a shot... what have you got to >lose?? There is a whole lot to gain. Let me know. And... will someone >please step forward and volunteer to be a coordination point for this >effort should it get off the ground. Please feel free to pass this along >to anyone who is interested in regaining our freedoms and rights in a >lawful, peaceful manner. > >Peace, > >Skip Wayland > > > > > >"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a >reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the >very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for >independence." > >Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948); American historian and educator > > ------------ PEACE ------------- > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * * > * SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM * > * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > >---------------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: 05/15/98 Time: 17:37:29 >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: Subject: Chinese funneled money to Democrats Date: 18 May 1998 09:13:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: New York Times May 16, 1998 Republicans Say Clinton Risked Security for Donations By ERIC SCHMITT and DON VAN NATTA Jr. WASHINGTON -- Armed with new evidence that Chinese military intelligence funneled money to the Democrats in 1996, congressional Republicans Friday accused President Clinton of allowing U.S. national security to be threatened. Even senior Democrats who have steadfastly supported the White House Friday expressed deep concern. "If the president does not act quickly and decisively, my presumption is that we have a genuine breach of national security for corrupt political purposes," Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said in a telephone interview. The New York Times reported Friday that a Democratic fund-raiser, Johnny Chung, had told federal investigators that he funneled nearly $100,000 from a Chinese military officer to the Democrats during the summer of 1996. The officer, Liu Chao-ying, sent Chung more than $300,000, which she told him originated with the intelligence agency of the Chinese military, according to officials who were briefed by the Justice Department about Chung's account. She told him to use the money for campaign contributions, the officials said. Apparently, Chung kept the rest for himself, several officials said Friday. In July 1996, Ms. Liu accompanied Chung to a California fund-raising dinner, where she had her photograph taken with Clinton. The White House Friday repeated denials that administration officials had any knowledge of the source of Chung's contributions or that the donations affected an administration decision in 1996 to make it easier for American companies to export space technology to China. "It's ludicrous to suggest there was an influence on the determination of U.S. policy in this matter," said a White House spokesman, Eric Rubin. But the new information reignites a debate over an issue that Democrats and the White House thought they had successfully put to rest. And it prompted some members of Congress to renew their calls for Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate 1996 campaign finance practices. The revelations have also galvanized Republicans on Capitol Hill, who had searched in vain for more than a year for a solid link between China and Democratic fund-raising practices that would resonate with American voters. Republicans believe that the specter of Beijing's military spies trying to buy access into the U.S. political system, coupled with reports that Clinton in 1996 made it easier for U.S. civilian communication satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets, may finally strike a chord. The Justice Department had opposed the presidential waivers for the satellite technology, expressing fear that two leading U.S. satellite companies, Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics, a General Motors subsidiary, provided space expertise to China that would enable Beijing to point long-range nuclear missiles more accurately at the United States. This handed Republicans the national-security issue they had sought. In an unusual example of close cooperation, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, and Gingrich met last month with several of their committee chairmen to map out multiple lines of inquiry into the administration's dealings with China, from illegal campaign contributions to Beijing's sales of weapons technology to Pakistan and Iran. The goal, congressional investigators said, was to hold a series of hearings before Clinton leaves for his summit visit to China in late June. Gingrich and Lott wrote to Clinton last Friday, urging him to provide documentation to refute these concerns. So far, the administration has refused, giving Republicans even more grist for their arguments that the White House is stonewalling. "If the president won't share the information with the Congress on these matters, then he and his administration are guilty," Gingrich said Friday. "They can't use defense-attorney techniques and blatant obstruction to block matters of national security." Gingrich said Clinton should cancel his scheduled trip to China late next month unless the president "clears this up." In a interview taped Friday for broadcast Saturday on CNBC's "Tim Russert" program, Lott said, "I'm also worried if we continue to play pattycake with China while they continue to be involved in weapons proliferation." Even Democrats who have backed the White House against earlier Republican attacks expressed deep concern. "If what's reported is true, it's very troubling," said Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House committee investigating campaign finance abuses. "This would be the first solid evidence that the Chinese government was implementing a plan to influence our elections." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., who is on the Senate committee that examined fund-raising practices, said in an interview, "Our investigation put a lot of dots on the canvas that suggested something very wrong had happened. But if this is correct, this information begins to connect those dots." Lieberman emphasized there was still no evidence that the White knew the source of Chung's money. Here is what federal investigators have learned so far about the Chinese government's actions: China's Military Intelligence Department provided more than $300,000 to Ms. Liu between July and September of 1996. She sent the entire amount to Chung, in the United States. Chung then funneled nearly $100,000 of that money to Democratic causes, including $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee, several U.S. officials said Friday. The intelligence connection apparently gives further credence to claims made last year by Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., who is chairman of the Senate committee that investigated campaign finance abuses last year. At the start of the hearings last July, Thompson announced that evidence had been uncovered that the Chinese government had influenced the U.S. elections in 1996. However, the most Thompson's committee could say when it issued a final report in March was that there was "strong circumstantial evidence" that China steered money into the Democratic campaign. Friday, Thompson said the new information vindicated the most explosive allegation of his inquiry. "We demonstrated that in mid-1995, the Chinese had a plan to involve themselves in our elections, and there was a big partisan argument about whether it was ever carried out or affected the presidential campaign," Thompson said in an interview. "This settles those issues, also." Chung, a Southern California businessman, began cooperating with investigators in March after pleading guilty to campaign-related bank and tax fraud. He told investigators that Ms. Liu told him that her money, which he funneled to the Democrats, originated with the Chinese military's intelligence arm, several officials said Friday. It was still not clear Friday whether other China officials or executives were involved in the purported payments by Ms. Liu, or what the motives of the Chinese military or intelligence might have been. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ====================================================================== 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. ====================================================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Good old Janet Part II (fwd) Date: 18 May 1998 09:14:44 -0700 Wow, that's depressing! I just don't see how I can score 100% on the Janet test if I don't have kids (to home school). Life is unfair! ; ) Boyd ('course I haven't ruled it out but I think I'll get married first) Kneeland At 1:33 PM -0800 5/15/98, Bill Vance wrote: >On May 15, Josh Amos wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >I read the following statement and then re-read the executive order lists >and shudder. > >Josh > > >>> Subject: Cults and Government >>> >>> Just ran across this quote from AG Janet Reno. From a person of such high >>> power, these are scary words. --------- >>> >>> "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second >>> Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high >>> level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their >>> children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in >the >>> Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may<<< >>> qualify [a person as a cultist] but certainly more than one [of these]<<< >>> would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being >>> in a risk situation that qualified for government interference." >>> >>> -Attorney General Janet Reno, Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994 >> >> >"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our >homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights." > >Major General Smedley Butler USMC 1930 >winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor > >[------------------------- 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: Cap Schwartz Subject: RE: Good old Janet Part II (fwd) Date: 18 May 1998 10:25:25 -0700 Hey, no problem! I still have a few at home you can have. =C -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 9:15 AM Wow, that's depressing! I just don't see how I can score 100% on the Janet test if I don't have kids (to home school). Life is unfair! ; ) Boyd ('course I haven't ruled it out but I think I'll get married first) Kneeland At 1:33 PM -0800 5/15/98, Bill Vance wrote: >On May 15, Josh Amos wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >I read the following statement and then re-read the executive order lists >and shudder. > >Josh > > >>> Subject: Cults and Government >>> >>> Just ran across this quote from AG Janet Reno. From a person of such high >>> power, these are scary words. --------- >>> >>> "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second >>> Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high >>> level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their >>> children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in >the >>> Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may<<< >>> qualify [a person as a cultist] but certainly more than one [of these]<<< >>> would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being >>> in a risk situation that qualified for government interference." >>> >>> -Attorney General Janet Reno, Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994 >> >> >"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our >homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights." > >Major General Smedley Butler USMC 1930 >winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor > >[------------------------- 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: Another friend of Bill, Strange death, McDougal Date: 18 May 1998 12:24:27 -0500 (CDT) Apparently-To: wwlist@dolphin.gulf.net AUTOPSY OF JIM MCDOUGAL RAISES NEW QUESTIONS Prison Inmates Alert McDougal's Physician to Mistreatment By Wesley Phelan On April 30, 1998, the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office issued a press release regarding the autopsy report of Whitewater witness James McDougal [1]. The press release said that tests of the vitreous chemistry did not indicate electrolyte imbalance, and that tests for the drug Lasix were negative. These findings, if accurate, will put to rest speculation that officials at the Fort Worth Medical Facility injected McDougal with Lasix in order to induce urine for a drug test [2]. The press release stated that the cause of death was 'hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.' According to Dr. Noland Hagood, McDougal's personal physician since 1992, "Jim's major problem was advanced atherosclerosis, or hardening of the arteries. He developed significant problems in his forties, which is a young age to develop that. He had blockage of the carotid artery in his forties. He had had several operations to treat his condition. Jim and I had talked about the fact that, with his condition, he was only a heartbeat away from death." Speculation about Lasix aside, the press release contains three noteworthy anomalies. First, the amount of Prozac in McDougal's blood was at a toxic level. This raises the questions of why McDougal was taking Prozac, and if the high level could have contributed to his death. According to Dr. Hagood, McDougal had been on Prozac for several years for treatment of manic depression, so the presence of the drug is, in itself, not surprising. Dr. Hagood also dismissed the possibility that the high level of Prozac was a direct cause of death: "A patient can take up to 80 milligrams per day of Prozac, although that is a rare dosage. It's very hard to overdose on Prozac. I understand that Jim's level was high, but he was probably on a high dose." Tarrant County Medical Examiner Nizam Peerwani, however, stated that "someone made the judgement to increase the dosage to 60 milligrams. And for him, that was too much."[3] In addition, the high level of Prozac may have made it difficult for McDougal to urinate, leading to his solitary confinement in what inmates call the "hole." The second anomaly is the fact that the autopsy found no other drugs in McDougal's body besides Prozac. Dr. Hagood told The Washington Weekly he believes McDougal needed as many as six medications to treat his heart problems and high blood pressure. The absence of other drugs could mean that prison officials withheld these medications, or it could indicate the autopsy results are suspect. The third anomaly is the statement in the press release that the "autopsy report [was] released yesterday." Employees in the medical examiner's office have repeatedly told The Washington Weekly that the autopsy report is not complete, and cannot be mailed out to the press. That statement was made as recently as May 15. In addition, a spokesman for the office told The Washington Weekly in April that autopsy reports which involve a lot of lab work regularly take between four and six weeks. McDougal died on March 8, which means that this particular autopsy report is now ten weeks in preparation. One wonders just what is causing the delay. INMATE ACCOUNTS OF MCDOUGAL'S LAST DAYS Dr. Hagood provided The Washington Weekly with two articles describing McDougal's last days at the facility, and the conditions in the segregation unit known as the 'hole'. The articles were sent to Dr. Hagood in a packet, with a short cover letter. The cover letter and the articles were written by inmates at the facility who were close friends of McDougal. The inmates wish to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons. Published here, for the first time, are the cover letter and the first article. THE COVER LETTER Dear Dr. Hagood: Thank you for your excellent article on Jim McDougal. Enclosed is what really happened to Jim. Just the fact that they keep the "hole" so cold had to have a severe effect on Jim. The cold is almost unbearable even to a healthy man. The method of taking a man to the "hole" is severe. Each man has his arms placed behind his back and is escorted by the Officer in front of all to see. This is part of the punishment in placing a man in the "hole". Enclosed are two articles for your information. If you require other information, please contact me at XXXXXX. I am still confined to prison and was a friend of Jim as long as he was here. I further believe the prison officials scared Jim into thinking he was a "snitch" and subject to being killed by another inmate. This was grossly unfair to Jim McDougal. THE FIRST ARTICLE The TV station announced at 3:51 PM on this date, that Jim McDougal of WHITEWATER fame had suddenly died of a heart attack. Let me tell YOU the real story of what happened to this HIGH PROFILE inmate at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, just before his death. On last Saturday at the normal REC time, Jim was called to give a urine specimen. The officer on duty there, insisted Jim give an immediate urine specimen. Jim could not. The inmate was to urinate into a small bottle while the Officer observed the process. We believe this was direct HARASSMENT for Jim because he neither smoked, used drugs or alcohol. Jim may have had a personal hang-up about urinating in front of someone. The Officer could have checked with the Medical department and he would have easily discovered that this same thing happened to Jim before. Jim was sent back to his unit at about 6:00 p.m. Almost immediately Jim was called to the Lieutenants office. Upon his arrival there, he was immediately handcuffed with his hands behind his back and delivered to the "HOLE". This was to be his punishment for not being able to urinate on demand. The temperature in the "HOLE" is kept at a constant 60 degrees supplying much discomfort to those men who have the misfortune of being thrown in the "HOLE". Jim hated the cold because of the blood thinner medication the Medical Department was requiring him to take. THE "HOLE" IS A VERY COLD PLACE. In the "HOLE" the inmate is free to do what he will, but in my experience, his biggest job is just to keep warm. He receives little or no attention from the Guards except at meal time. Now the "HOLE" is no place to send an older man or a man with a history of heart problems. Jim was a very sensitive person who had already been through so much in the WHITEWATER investigation. Jim lay down because he felt ill. He was flushed and nauseated but still could not urinate on demand. At about 10:20 AM on Sunday Morning at Count Time, Jim was found face down on the floor of his cell. He was totally unconscious. Medical Emergency was called and Jim was rushed to the Medical Center from the "HOLE". On Sunday Morning at approximately 10:55 AM an evacuation helicopter landed at the rear of the Medical Center. Jim was quickly transferred to copter. They left immediately for the best heart treatment center in Fort Worth, the John Peter Smith Hospital. The announcement that Jim had died came in over the radio at about 3:00 PM shortly followed on TV. Many inmates and others witnessed that Jim appeared to already be dead as he left the prison "HOLE". During his last months here, Jim spent his mornings lifting and hauling garbage sacks to the dumpster at the rear of the property. Jim did this work on a clearly volunteer basis as he had never been cleared to do that work. Jim felt he was helping his fellow inmates in his own way. Jim always smiled as he did that hard, thankless task. Jim McDougal was liked by every man who really knew him, with few exceptions. We hope that God will bless Jim as he goes to a better place. This article provides some very valuable information. Geoff Metcalf reported shortly after McDougal's death that many inmates saw a strange helicopter at the facility that day. The article explains the purpose of the helicopter, which was to transport McDougal to the hospital. The article also states that McDougal was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital because it had the best heart treatment center in Fort Worth. Due to the very recent receipt of the article, The Washington Weekly was not able to confirm the reputation of the hospital's heart treatment center [4]. The article also raises some disturbing questions. Was McDougal nauseated in the hole because of the high level of Prozac in his blood? Where is the wisdom in placing a man "who is a heartbeat away from death" in a room where healthy men have trouble staying warm? And most important of all, was McDougal's drug test really random, or was the dosage increase in his Prozac a prelude to his being targeted for a punitive drug test? Whatever the answers to these questions, Jim McDougal's problems with 'random' drug tests may in fact have been linked to a very peculiar episode in the Whitewater investigation. In March of 1997, a tornado supposedly ripped open the trunk of a car, abandoned at a repair shop in Arkansas ten years earlier [5]. Johnny Lawhon, the repair shop owner, claimed to have discovered in the trunk boxes containing thousands of documents. One of the documents was a $27,000 check from McDougal's former savings and loan -- made out to Bill Clinton. Making the episode even more interesting is the fact that Henry Floyd, the man who abandoned the car, said it was given to him by Jim McDougal's mother. McDougal certainly thought his troubles were linked to that episode. He told Bill Simmons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "the day the check is found, I'm sentenced to seven days in solitary confinement" [6]. How many other checks and Whitewater-related documents turned up in that car is anybody's guess. In April, Susan McDougal was called before the now-defunct Little Rock grand jury. She was asked about a check for $5,081.82, payable to Madison Guaranty. The check carried the notation, "Payoff Clinton." Susan refused to answer any questions about the check, choosing instead to face charges for criminal contempt. The following account of the session was carried in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Q: Ms. McDougal, you signed this check; is that correct? A: May I go out and see my attorney? Q: Ms. McDougal, would you please answer the question first? A: May I go out and see my attorney sir? Q: Yes, Ms. McDougal. Grand Jury Foreman: Yes, you may. A: May I take that? Q: No, you may not. A: 5081.82. Exit witness, stage left, muttering the amount to herself as she leaves enshrouded by the heavenly mist of stained-glass light. Ms. McDougal consults with lawyer, then returns to announce that--surprise!--she ain't talkin', copper. And they say film noir will never match the '30s version [7]. The Democrat-Gazette writers then speculate as to where the mysterious check for $5,081.82 might have come from. Their best guess? That old abandoned Mercury. How fortunate for Bill Clinton that Jim McDougal is no longer available to shed light on any of these mysteries! A VOICE FROM THE GRAVE The mainstream media have gone to great pains to convince the American public that Susan McDougal is an innocent victim of an independent counsel gone wild. They would have us believe that her refusals to answer simple questions, such as "Did Bill Clinton lie?" are straightforward expressions of principle. The attempt has, perhaps, been most transparent on "Larry King Live," where Sue and her lawyer have been allowed to pontificate at length on how hard-hearted and evil Kenneth Starr is. Of course, Mr. King never mentioned the fact that a California indictment for embezzling $150,000 from Zubin Mehta awaits the one-time equestrienne land hawker. The most recent -- and most hilarious - -- attempt at the canonization of Susan was an editorial by Donald Kaul, which appeared on May 12 in newspapers across the country. Mr. Kaul somehow came to the conclusion that Susan is the lone heroine in the Starr-Clinton saga. According to Kaul, she stands out in the whole sordid mess as "a person of character." Jim McDougal, on the other hand, is regularly portrayed as a southern snake oil salesman, who should have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. We can expect such characterizations to intensify in the coming weeks. Before he died Jim McDougal wrote a book [8], aptly titled "Arkansas Mischief." On Friday of last week, the Associated Press reported a few of what will likely prove to be many allegations in the book against Bill Clinton. McDougal wrote that he made $2000-a-month payoffs to Clinton back in the 1980's when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. He also wrote that Clinton promised to pardon Susan before he leaves office. The White House is already apoplectic about the forthcoming book, calling the charges "outlandish," and "scurrilous falsehoods." One can almost see the ghost of Jim McDougal smiling. (I would like to thank Dr. Noland Hagood and Todd Turner, the attorney for Jim McDougal's estate, for generously giving their time to help me obtain medical records pertaining to McDougal's death. They are not responsible for my point of view, or for any errors that might appear in this article.) NOTES [1] The text of the press release was as follows: "The final cause of death of Mr. James McDougal was attributed to 'Hypertensive Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease' in an autopsy report released yesterday in Fort Worth. Mr. James McDougal, who was 57 years of age at the time of his death, was an inmate at the Federal Medical Facility in Fort Worth, where he was apparently discovered in his segregated cell on March 08, 1998. He was transported to John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, where he [was] pronounced dead at 12:01 p.m. Autopsy confirmed clinical history of both hypertension as well as severe peripheral vascular disease. Most significant findings at autopsy included an enlarged heart with left ventricular hypertrophy and dilation, and occlusive coronary atherosclerosis. Postmortem toxicology was positive for fluoroxetine (Prozac) and its metabolite norfluoxetine. The values reflected in Mr. McDougal's femoral blood indicate that the combined amount of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine were above the therapeutic range but not lethal. In addition to the above studies, a comprehensive heavy metal screen as well as screen for mercury poisoning were carried out, all of which were reported negative. Postmortem vitreous chemistry did not indicate electrolyte imbalance and postmortem blood furosemide (Lasix) was negative." [2] The Washington Weekly has ordered a copy of the autopsy report, and has made arrangements to submit it to independent analysis by a top forensic pathologist. [3] Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 29, 1998. [4] In a previous article, I reported the comments of a former Tarrant County Deputy Sheriff, who said conditions in the hospital's emergency room were appalling. These comments were consistent with comments made to me by people I met on my trip to Fort Worth. One convenience store clerk said he "could not believe they took McDougal to that place." [5] Johnny Lawhon, the person who found the long-lost documents, died in a one-car crash shortly after the discovery. I was told by a friend of McDougal that the documents were not 'discovered' because of a tornado, and that the Mercury was not abandoned. I was also told that a second person connected to the 'discovery' of the documents is now dead. This source also said: "I knew Jim and Susan real well. . . . Jim was getting ready to talk about Mena, Arkansas. Jim had all the information on Mena." I have not been able to confirm this information. [6] The exact chronology of when the documents were 'discovered,' when they were turned over to the Starr investigation, and when the White House learned of their existence, is evidently known only to the principals. [7] Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, May 10, 1998. [8] Advance orders for McDougal's book, expected to be out shortly, can be placed through Amazon at the Washington Weekly web site http://www.federal.com [ Wesley Phelan can be reached at wphlen@mtco.com ] Published in the May 18, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: More on Clinton and Red Chinese Date: 19 May 1998 12:39:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is a very important summary of how the Clinton Administration has sold US security interests -- and why. Please forward it to your own lists. Mike Collins RNC Press Secretary (202) 863-8550 (Voice) (202) 863-8773 (Fax) (800) 317-4967 (Pager) E-Mail: mcollins@rnchq.org Visit Our Web Site: http://www.rnc.org ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE U.S. Security for Sale WASHINGTON -- A President hungry for money to finance his re-election overruled the Pentagon; he sold to a Chinese Military Intelligence front the technology that defense experts argued would give Beijing the capacity to blind our spy satellites and launch a sneak attack. How soon we have forgotten Pearl Harbor. October 1996 must have been some tense month for Democratic fund-raisers. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times had begun to expose "the Asian connection" of John Huang and Indonesia's Riady family to the Clinton campaign. The fix was already in to sell the satellite technology to China. Clinton had switched the licensing over to Ron Brown's anything-goes Commerce Department. Johnny Chung had paid up. Commerce's Huang had delivered money big time (though one of his illegal foreign sources had already been spotted). The boss of the satellite's builder had come through as Clinton's largest contributor. But public outrage was absent. The F.B.I. didn't read the papers and Reno Justice did not want to embarrass the President. And television news found no pictorial values in the Asian connection. Stealthily, the Clinton Administration held back the implementation of the corrupt policy until Nov. 5 -- the day the campaign ended. Now the reporting of Jeff Gerth and The Times's investigative team is putting the spotlight of pitiless publicity on the sellout of American security. We begin to see how the daughter of China's top military commander steered at least $300,000 through the Chung channel to the D.N.C. (Apparently Mr. Chung skimmed off a chunk and may be spilling his guts lest he have to face his Beijing friends.) We begin to learn more of the Feb. 8, 1996, visit of the arms dealer Wang Jun to the Commerce office of Ron Brown, and Wang's "coffee" meeting that day with the President, the very day that Clinton approved four Chinese launches -- even as China was terrorizing Taiwan with missile tests. Clinton's explanation, which used to slyly suggest that China policy was not changed "solely" by contributors, has now switched to total ignorance: shucks, we didn't know the source of the money. But this President's D.N.C. did not know because it wanted not to know; procedures long in place to prevent the unlawful inflow of foreign funds were uprooted by the money-hungry Clintonites. Today, two years after this sale of our security, comes the unforeseen chain reaction: as China strengthens its satellite and missile technology, a new Indian Government reacts to the growing threat from its longtime Asian rival and joins the nuclear club. In turn, China feels pressed to supply its threatened ally, Pakistan, with weaponry Beijing promised us not to transfer. This makes Clinton the Proliferation President. Who has helped keep this sellout of security under wraps? In the Senate, John Glenn was rewarded with a space flight by Clinton for derogating the leads to China of the Thompson committee. Fred Thompson's warnings about China's plan to penetrate this White House were then scorned by Democratic partisans; his Government Operations Committee should now swarm all over this. The House's aggressive agent of the Clinton cover-up, Henry Waxman of California, is finally "troubled" by the prospect of damning evidence he prevented the Burton committee from finding. At least three Democratic partisans who foolishly followed Waxman in blocking the testimony of Asian witnesses may have difficulty explaining their cover-up vote to even more troubled voters in their districts. The Gerth revelations lead to more questions: Where were the chiefs of the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, their intelligence so dependent on satellites, on the satellite technology sale to China? Is anybody at Reno Justice re-examining testimony taken by independent counsel investigating corruption at Commerce before Ron Brown's death? Does Brown's former lawyer claim "dead man's privilege" on notes? Did N.S.A. tape overseas calls of suspect Commerce officials? Who induced Commerce to lobby Clinton for control of satellite technology? And the most immediate: Will homesick prosecutor Charles LaBella, beholden to Janet Reno for his political appointment in San Diego, dare to offend his patron by calling for independent counsel? ====================================================================== ========================================================================== 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 I'm working on a concise synopsis of the whole tangled mess surrounding the China Syndrome and Nuclear Arms. I want to keep it short, but still include the essential details. Below is my first draft. Please do comment on any suggested corrections, additions, modifications, omissions. I will be posting this on my web site pronto. Thanks BT ================ Here are the facts: Bill Clinton spent his young adulthood protesting against US military actions abroad, and against nuclear weaponry. In 1992, both Bill Clinton and Al Gore lambasted George Bush for "Coddling Tyrants" in China, and demanded that the granting of Most Favored Nation status to China be linked to human rights progress. Suddenly, sometime prior to the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign, Bill Clinton decides that MFN should not be linked to human rights, and he gets MFN status for the "tyrants" in China. About the same time, Clinton transfers jurisdiction over export of sensitive encryption, communications, and nuclear technology from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Secretary of State Warren Christopher had been warning Clinton NOT to issue waivers allowing the transfer of such technology to China. As had nearly all of his top advisors at the Pentagon. Conversely, Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown was more than willing to sell anything to anyone, as long as it was politically advantageous to Clinton and the Democrats. And peculiarly, also working with Brown and Commerce was John Huang, suspected Chinese operative, and big-time fundraiser for the Democrats. John Huang had NO security clearance. Bill Clinton had forced the suspension of the normal rules governing security clearances for persons with access to confidential material in the case of Huang. Ron Brown, who was about to be indicted on charges of influence peddling, mysteriously dies in a plane crash, which the US military lied about concerning certain details before and after. Ron Brown's office was immediately ransacked by several Commerce personnel, and confidential materials disappeared. No one was ever held accountable, even though the culprits were known. The investigation into Brown was dropped. Johnny Chung, Democrat fundraiser, gives a total of over $300,000 to the Democrat party, much of which was later shown to have come from the Chinese military. The daughter of a top Chinese military leader who was the source of this money was granted an audience with Clinton after a fundraiser, even though this was a blatant violation of security protocols. The White House claimed not to know the source of the money, nor the background of the "guest". The reason: It did not WANT to know. Bill Clinton had once again forced the suspension of security checking on certain fundraisers, even though they had been warned that Chung was a "hustler." China is suspected of transferring some of its nuclear technology, some of which came from the US, to Pakistan, a violation of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty accords. The US wags its finger and does nothing. The Justice department was investigating Loral Communications for possible violations of export regulations concerning sensitive technologies. Bill Clinton subverted that investigation by issuing waivers to two corporations, Loral Communications and Hughes Electronics, allowing them to export sensitive computer, and missile technology to China. By coincidence, Loral just happens to be the single largest contributor to the Democrat party. This opens the floodgates for further technology transfers by Loral and other companies, and undermines any prosecutions of prior violations. Some of this technology greatly enhances the nuclear capabilities of China, and by implication that of its ally, Pakistan. China, as a result of the technology it received from the US, now has greatly enhanced nuclear missile targeting capability, including, for the first time, the ability to reach targets in the US. India, seeing that the US had allowed China to furnish Pakistan (an enemy of India) with enhanced nuclear capabilities, decides to end its 24 year old moratorium on the development of its own nuclear arsenal, and immediately detonates 5 test explosions underground. Pakistan declares its intention to do the same as India. North Korea, whose own nuclear program was ostensibly "suspended" pending the blackmail of US provision of oil and "non-weaponizable" nuclear power technology, hints that it is becoming impatient and may resume its own nuclear program again. Iraq, which was supposed to have shown proof that it has completely dismantled its own nuclear development program, continues to defy UN inspectors, thereby proving quite the opposite. Bill Clinton ultimately will become the "Nuclear Proliferation President." How ironic. ========================================================================== 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: Comment Period on Brady Bill Ending May 20 (fwd) Date: 19 May 1998 12:06:31 PST On May 18, Gary Stocker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The BATF's official comment period regarding the proposed permanent Brady Bill rules will be over on May 20, 1998. For a brief overview see http://www.tsra.com/BradyBad.htm for full text of the BATF notice see http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/rules/notice857.htm To use the BATF's response for go to http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/rules/response.htm Remember, it must arrive by May 20. If you send a letter, you will need to overnight-express it or use Western Union to get it there by Wednesday. Also, send your two US Senator's and your U.S. Representative a copy of the letter. [------------------------- 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: Harry Barnett Subject: "Golden Candle" for South Africa's Spies Date: 19 May 1998 13:27:55 -0700 (PDT) From the "Daily News Bulletin", an E-zine distributed by the South African Embassy. It's interesting because of the way our Constitutional Republic handles Foreign Affairs, e.g., China, etc. > SA'S SPIES COMMENDED BY US INTELLIGENCE GROUPS: BUSINESS DAY, > 980519, P.2 - SA's clandestine services received the Golden Candle award > yesterday - a sort of Oscar for spies who make good use of public > information and otherwise demonstrate literal intelligence - at an > international convention in Washington of secret agents, military > analysts, codecrackers and policemen. National intelligence coordinator > Linda Mti travelled to Washington to accept the prize, and will address > the convention, Global Intelligence 98 on "Open source intelligence, the > African renaissance and sustainable development". The honour was shared > by the "foreign, clandestine, military and domestic" branches of the SA > intelligence community in recognition of "their extraordinary > accomplishments during the period of reconciliation", and > notwithstanding such recent controversies as the "non-sensical" > intelligence report outlining a supposed coup. > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: GSL> DIPR Website (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 01:48:22 PST On May 21, Douglas Davis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: gsl@majordomo.pobox.com >Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:19:52 -0400 >From: "Val W. Finnell, MD" >Organization: NVCDL >To: gsl@listbox.com >Subject: GSL> DIPR Website >Sender: owner-gsl@listbox.com >Reply-To: gsl@listbox.com > >----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com >Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc. (DIPR) now has a WWW >site. This will be one-stop shopping for scholarly refutations of the >medical propaganda and other junk science dealing with gun-control. > >The site is brand new and will be updated almost on a daily basis. >Please be patient. Educate yourself by visiting: > >http://www.dipr.org > > >-------------------------- >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. > > ****************** 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 ] 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: Forward (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 01:46:21 PST On May 21, Edgar Suter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Path: lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer.g ip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.concentric.ne t!global-news-master Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Organization: NEISIS! http://www.neisis.org/index.shtml Lines: 49 Message-ID: <356214F0.2545@neisis.org> Reply-To: bang@neisis.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts004d47.chi-il.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Bang Says: These antis ain't too bright. Read the press release below, then make sure you call the referenced woman and order the FREE speakers' kit. Just tell them you are a doctor or a preacher or something that makes you sound like a typical pablum slurper. Bang thinks it's a good idea for us to take advantage of some of the Joyce Foundation's money? Don't you??? Also, make sure you send a note to the e-mail address that is also listed. If they're gonna be stupid enough to advertize, we may as well give'em what they ask for!!!!!! Firearm Injury Prevention Speakers Kit Available 5/19/98 For Immediate Release: May 19, 1998 Contact Information: Lori Lovett American Academy of Pediatrics 141 Northwest Point Boulevard Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 Phone: 800-433-9016 Fax: 847-228-5097 Injury and death from firearms have become a public health problem for the nation's children. As part of its response, the American Academy of Pediatrics has prepared a speaker's kit, titled "Preventing Firearm Injury: Protecting Children." The kit is for pediatricians and other health care providers interested in presenting firearms injury prevention information to the public or to colleagues. It was developed with funds from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the AAP Friends of Children Corporate Fund. The kit includes slides, a narrative, tips for organizing presentations, tips for dealing with challenging issues or opinions, a suggested reading list and more. The kit is free of charge and can be obtained by calling Lori Lovett at 800-433-9016, ext. 6779 or by e-mail at llovett@aap.org. Source: Join Together Online -- "...I don't believe gun owners have rights." (Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Incorporated, from the Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997) [------------------------- 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: Question for San Antonio listmembers (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 08:29:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by csmkersh@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh) DF uses ceramic bullets to cut down on richocets. But they are deadly and are an assasin's dream... ............................................................................. Delta Force bid for S.A. exercise gets shots down Express-News: News: Nation Delta Force bid for S.A. exercise gets shots down By Sig Christenson and Christopher Anderson Express-News Staff Writers First came the loud whirring of helicopter blades, then booming explosions followed by the crackle of small-arms fire. Dazed, confused and frightened, nearby residents in working-class homes awakened in the dead of night, tumbled from their beds, scrambled for shelter and called for help. This wasn't war-torn Bosnia, the terrorist-ravaged Middle East or the crime-plagued city of Washington, but another night of Army Special Operations training Delta Force-style -- this time in Houston, Charlotte, N.C., and Des Plaines, Ill. "We didn't have black-clad ninjas running through the city of Des Plaines," said Police Chief Bob Sturlini, whose community of 55,000 people borders Chicago. But by giving Army Special Operations troops the green light to use their cities for urban counterterrorist training, top municipal officials in Des Plaines, Charlotte and Houston had a bigger problem: a public relations black eye. In the past three years, the Special Operations Command has conducted such exercises in at least 21 U.S. cities, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and Seattle. San Antonio was to be next in line for such exercises, but City Manager Alex Briseño, Police Chief Al Philippus and Mayor Howard Peak practically slammed the door Tuesday on proposed Delta Force training here. Peak said the crack outfit won't get the key to San Antonio unless it can ensure public safety. "They ought to go out and look for a set in Hollywood or something," the mayor said late Tuesday. "If they're looking for a place to play, that might be more suitable than a real, live city and all the things we've got to look out for." Said Philippus: "As far as I'm concerned, it's over. We're not willing to support them." The elite, deadly and super-secret Delta Force has spent the past several months quietly negotiating leases and meeting with police to map out nighttime mock air and ground assaults using live ammunition, explosive charges and low- flying helicopters over vacant West Side and East Side buildings. A self-described Delta Force team leader Tuesday would not say whether his unit asked to train here or even admit the unit exists. But a two-page memorandum issued to the City Council, dated April 14 and signed by Philippus and City Attorney Frank Garza, describes a meeting in which Delta Force members and municipal officials discussed a mock assault. The training exercises would involve about 100 Delta Force commandos being dropped onto the rooftops of buildings by hovering helicopters under the cover of darkness. They would use explosives to blow their way inside, then fire on targets with possibly deadly ceramic bullets. No date had been set for the exercises, which would have included St. Theresa's Academy and brushed homes on the Southeast Side. "The nuns still live back there, and they're very protective," said Councilwoman Debra Guerrero, whose district includes the academy. "It's totally surrounded by neighborhoods." Delta Force might not have gotten wind of public reaction had their "raids" been sanctioned by the city, but Peak, Philippus and Guerrero almost certainly would not have been as fortunate. The flash, bang and pop of commando training in the city left Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Dennis Nowicki and former Houston Police Chief Sam Nuchia with a bad case of klieg-light burn. Like their fellow residents, neither man even knew Delta Force was in town -- until they faced the harsh glare of TV minicams. "We had not informed the community," said Nuchia, now a state appeals court judge, "and then, of course, the news media frenzied on it." In Des Plaines, hundreds of residents frightened by low-flying helicopters and explosions, called police. The city of San Antonio memorandum, citing a lengthy story in the February 1997 edition of Soldier of Fortune magazine, said Delta Force confirmed that $100,000 in property damage resulted from an explosion in a warehouse district near New Orleans. In Miami, a bullet fired during a Delta Force raid went awry, ricocheting into the window of an all- night restaurant. Commandos in Charlotte flew helicopters at treetop level over a lower middle-class, predominantly African-American neighborhood near a warehouse district on the night of March 4, 1997, prompting one man to grab "his shotgun out of fear," Nowicki said. An old abandoned warehouse just northwest of downtown was the target. Nuchia said a Special Operations exercise startled Houstonians in the Ship Channel area, causing residents to call 911. Nuchia called the negative fallout from the mission "our responsibility and our failure," but Nowicki said Delta Force stumbled by putting its own needs ahead of his city. "I don't think that they failed in their mission, but they failed in helping us accomplish our mission," he said. "Our mission is to maintain order and enhance the quality of life and to deal with the fears in our community." >....................end cite........................ Sam A. Kersh CSM, USA (ret) NRA Life Member BRR9724W TSRA Life Member JPFO, LEAA 52662 Ducks Unlimited Operation Game Thief http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/csmkersh.htm -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: SH: Us Investigations services inc. by Clinton Exec. order (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 13:11:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *****Did taxpayers get the shaft? *****Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net *****Copyright =A9 1998 Scripps Howard=20 (May 21, 1998 01:20 a.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -- This is part of the occasional series "A Different Kind of Government" from Scripps Howard News Service about what really happened when the public work force was "re-invented" by the Clinton administration. BOYERS, Pa. -- The Clinton administration's policy to shrink the federal government inadvertently has turned a huge limestone cave into a gold mine for a private company created by direct order of the White House. In one of the strangest incidents during his massive effort to "reinvent" the federal bureaucracy, President Clinton directed the formation of a company called US Investigations Service, Inc., headquartered in an abandoned mine hundreds of feet beneath Butler County in rural northwest Pennsylvania. The company, which checks virtually all prospective civilian federal workers to determine if they have past criminal convictions or otherwise might endanger national security, was formed when 706 government employees of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) were dismissed in 1996 and offered jobs in the first employee-owned corporation ever created by the federal government. The privatization did reduce the number of federal employees, one of Clinton's goals, but it's not clear that taxpayers saved money in the deal. The private operation appears to be quite profitable for its new owners. "This company is doing well," said Phil Harper, president and chief executive officer of the new firm. "I'm not going to give you a profit figure. That would give our competitors an edge." A Scripps Howard News Service analysis shows the federal government paid the 706 employees $37.3 million a year in salaries and benefits before they were privatized in July 1996. The private company received nearly twice that amount, or $73.2 million, from the government in its first full year of operation. The firm is expected to get a total of more than $153 million in its first two years and two months of business. Because government accounting is so complicated, it's difficult to compare the cost of the federal operation with the private version. And the company won't disclose how it spends taxpayer money or provide any details about its profits or salaries, including the compensation given to corporate officers. This much is known: The private company pays nothing for most of its office space or for the computers that make the business possible; those costs are still paid by the U.S. government. Essentially, only the work force was privatized. "There are still a lot of expenses besides salaries," Harper said. "Travel is a large component. And we still have the need for paper, pens, pencils, repair agreements on equipment, leases on equipment -- a lot of incidentals that add up." Government officials defend the contract, but with some qualifications. "Was there a better way to do this? Maybe. Maybe there was a more efficient way," said OPM spokesman Bruce Milhans. "But we are confident that we have saved the taxpayers money. We are confident of that." Milhans and other officials said that the decision to privatize the former Office of Investigations was "an executive decision" from the White House. "This was part of the reinvention of government," he said. "If we had just fired everybody, there would have been an enormous disruption among the federal agencies (needing background checks). There wasn't a private-sector company in existence that could do this when this was decided to be done," Milhans said. "We did care about our employees and we wanted to give them the support they needed for five years so they could make a successful transition." Thus the fledgling company was insulated from many of the major operating expenses faced by most start-up businesses. The firm has free use of tens of thousands of square feet of office space in the Butler County cave complex (a secured compound the government began leasing during the Cold War) and in 21 other federally leased offices nationwide. Most important, it has free access to a vast and priceless government computer database of criminal, civilian and governmental records not available to the public. Harper won't reveal how much it costs to run the operation or the amount of profit because he says it might help potential competitors. It is not clear, however, how any other firm could take over when the work first becomes available for open bidding in 2001. At the moment of its inception, US Investigations Services became the largest security background company in the world. The firm's leaders deny that their profit margins are excessive. But last year they voluntarily gave up an additional $5.1 million the company was entitled to in the federal contract by reducing its charge for each investigation and by rolling back the price cut to July 8, 1996, when the company began. Harper said he turned down the additional $5.1 million not because he feared appearing too profitable, but in order to win a new contract in three years. "I've got 700 people here. I want to win that re-bid," he said. According to an in-house chronology prepared by OPM, the privatization occurred soon after Clinton took office in 1993. Newly confirmed OPM Director Jim King promised that OPM would become a "model agency" during reinvention. In February 1994, King held "the first of several emergency meetings" with the investigations staff "to discuss the unit's poor financial situation." At that time, the investigations staff consisted of nearly 1,400 people, and the typical investigation cost $596 each. Three months later, King cut 400 employees, most of whom found other federal work. The cost per investigation was cut in half to about $231 each -- a level of efficiency that the private company only recently has been able to match, according to OPM estimates. But Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who heads the reinvention effort, already had decided that privatization was the way to go. Clinton has said he believes that the federal government generally shouldn't do work that can be performed by private companies under federal contract. Clinton, Gore, King and four other agency heads attended a Dec. 19, 1994, news conference at the White House to announce a stream of government realignments. "For OPM's part, the president directs Mr. King to privatize or otherwise remove from government control the training and investigations functions of OPM," according to the official chronology. OPM contracted with the Marine Midland Bank of Buffalo, N.Y., to serve as trustee to establish an employee stock ownership plan to operate the new company. A private cost-benefit analysis by Kormendi/Gardner Partners estimated that privatization would save at least $20 million during the first five years. In May 1996, employees for the investigations service were given termination notices, but within 48 hours each employee was offered a job "at the same salary and with comparable benefits" in the new company. "Those were a tumultuous couple of years," said employee James D. Shope, a former investigator who heads training and development for the new company. "Financially, I believe most employees are doing better than before. I don't think anybody took a hit under privatization." Employees were given the same salary -- although this has been frozen at the 1996 rate for two years. In compensation, however, employees receive annual shares of stock based on their salaries. Employees last year were given profit incentive bonuses which more than made up for the lack of cost-of-living adjustments during the past two years. "For me, financially, it was a lot better," said data support clerk Sandra Severino. OPM managers insist that even if US Investigations Services earns millions of dollars in profits, taxpayers are saving money -- and that's not to mention the $8 million in federal taxes the company paid last year. Harper, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who became president of Wells Fargo Alarm Services before the trustees selected him to head the newly privatized agency, said his company merely took the deal it was offered. "We started with a fixed pile of money that OPM said they were spending. We had nothing to do with that," Harper said. "It wasn't our decision, right or wrong, good or bad." After a brief pause, Harper continued: "I got to admit, though, that I thought this would be a good thing to do -- if you believe in a smaller government and if you believe that services in the private sector should be provided by the private sector." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun Owners Petition (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 14:48:43 PST This may bear some discussion, but seems good so far..... On May 20, ShootStuff wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I am a WAC member (#45795) and a citizen who is tired of seeing my rights eroded daily. A group of us after much discussion in the forums of www.guns.com came up with a petition that we want to present (with thousands of signatures) to the pro-gun groups. All we want is for them to work together in a unified front against the increasing onslaught of both national and international assaults on our basic and fundamental rights. Please review the petition and place a link on the WAC page to give the members the opportunity to decide if this is a cause they want to put their name on. The address is http://members.aol.com/FIGHTFORUS/GunownersPetition.html Also please send this message out to the email list. The names are only going to be used for this petition. No mailing lists or requests for anything. Just stand up and be counted. Thank you Dan Clark ShootStuff@aol.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: Tom Cloyes Subject: Oregon School Shooting Date: 21 May 1998 18:03:12 -0400 I logged onto AOL to check mail this evening, and saw an article about another school shooting. In the article a teacher was quoted as saying that he thinks we should disarm. He seems not to realize that we already have been disarmed, and these shootings are a direct of this disarmament, and he wants more of this?? I can't for the life of me understand why people believe that when laws are passed that those laws only apply to the law-breaking. Criminals are, by nature, unable to abide by the law, so enacting more laws to micro-manage their criminal carreers will never work, and that is where they fail. It is already against the law to kill someone, but they want everyone but the criminal to be defenseless, making their workplace safer for their criminal pursuits. When are these idiots going to wake up? Tom - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Oregon School Shooting Date: 21 May 1998 15:53:41 -0700 What I found more ironic about that Gym teachers comments, were that (at least in a post to the local LP list) the very next paragraph read: " ``Any kid who takes a gun to school -- why he isn't put under observation for a few weeks is beyond me.'' " So, he took the time express a rational thought on this, but had to precede it with the usual (now normal) emotional response. I'd say he was half way there but it's such a contradiction that, to me anyway, it just indicates a deeper irationality over the issue. You put it well; this (the teachers fears, and to some degree all these shootings) is an outcome of the school gun ban. (all IMHO) Boyd Kneeland pres. CLAW At 6:03 PM -0400 5/21/98, Tom Cloyes wrote: >I logged onto AOL to check mail this evening, and saw an article about >another school shooting. In the article a teacher was quoted as saying that >he thinks we should disarm. He seems not to realize that we already have >been disarmed, and these shootings are a direct of this disarmament, and he >wants more of this?? I can't for the life of me understand why people >believe that when laws are passed that those laws only apply to the >law-breaking. Criminals are, by nature, unable to abide by the law, so >enacting more laws to micro-manage their criminal carreers will never work, >and that is where they fail. It is already against the law to kill someone, >but they want everyone but the criminal to be defenseless, making their >workplace safer for their criminal pursuits. When are these idiots going to >wake up? > >Tom > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Oregon School Shooting Date: 21 May 1998 15:53:41 -0700 What I found more ironic about that Gym teachers comments, were that (at least in a post to the local LP list) the very next paragraph read: " ``Any kid who takes a gun to school -- why he isn't put under observation for a few weeks is beyond me.'' " So, he took the time express a rational thought on this, but had to precede it with the usual (now normal) emotional response. I'd say he was half way there but it's such a contradiction that, to me anyway, it just indicates a deeper irationality over the issue. You put it well; this (the teachers fears, and to some degree all these shootings) is an outcome of the school gun ban. (all IMHO) Boyd Kneeland pres. CLAW At 6:03 PM -0400 5/21/98, Tom Cloyes wrote: >I logged onto AOL to check mail this evening, and saw an article about >another school shooting. In the article a teacher was quoted as saying that >he thinks we should disarm. He seems not to realize that we already have >been disarmed, and these shootings are a direct of this disarmament, and he >wants more of this?? I can't for the life of me understand why people >believe that when laws are passed that those laws only apply to the >law-breaking. Criminals are, by nature, unable to abide by the law, so >enacting more laws to micro-manage their criminal carreers will never work, >and that is where they fail. It is already against the law to kill someone, >but they want everyone but the criminal to be defenseless, making their >workplace safer for their criminal pursuits. When are these idiots going to >wake up? > >Tom > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: CNN Poll on School Shooting in Oregon (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 17:37:08 PST On May 21, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.cnn.com As of 6:40pm EST Who or what is most responsible for school violence? Kids 9% Parents 29% Schools 1% Media %12 Access to Guns 26% All of the Above 20% None of the Above 2% [------------------------- 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: Your papers! (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 17:36:28 PST On May 21, EdgarSuter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_895766491_boundary Content-ID: <0_895766491@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_895766491_boundary Content-ID: <0_895766491@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from relay07.mx.aol.com (relay07.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.7]) by air13.mail.aol.com (v43.17) with SMTP; Thu, 21 May 1998 08:08:15 -0400 Received: from sportsmen.net (cactuscorner.com [209.180.132.10]) by relay07.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with SMTP id IAA14477 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 08:08:04 -0400 (EDT) X-ROUTED: Thu, 21 May 1998 05:06:32 -0700 Received: from bruce34.thnet.com [206.98.115.134] by sportsmen.net with smtp id AFAACOAP ; Thu, 21 May 1998 05:01:02 -0700 Organization: The Vigo Examiner Reply-to: Distribution@vigo-examiner.com Priority: normal message-id: TCPSMTP_GEN.11175.15219@206.98.115.134 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit GUEST EDITORIAL Major New SSN Legislation in Congress by Pastor JOHN STEPHAN BROWN preacher@link2000.net There is a bill which imposes Mandatory SSN Requirements Upon the States. Legislation is currently pending before Congress which will make it MANDATORY for states to collect social security numbers before they can grant any state-issued license or certificate. The bill under consideration, H.R. 3130, mandates that states "SHALL" require SSNs from ALL applicants for any professional license, driver's license, occupational license, or recreational license in addition to requiring SSNs on all birth certificates, marriage certificates, divorce decrees, and death certificates. This is a major change from the present law which merely "coerces" states to collect SSNs under the child support enforcement program as a condition to their receiving federal welfare funding. The original bill passed the House in March of this year as the "Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998". The House measure provided "bonuses" for states which achieve acceptable "performance scores" in tracking down deadbeat dads and collecting unpaid child support payments. The House approved version did not contain any SSN reporting requirements. But when H.R. 3130 went to the Senate a "substitute" bill was quickly approved including the mandatory provisions. The Senate substitute, sponsored by Senator William Roth, was approved by unanimous consent on April 2, 1998. Section 403 of this bill will amend Title 42 U.S. Code section 405(c)(2)(c) by changing the word "MAY" to the word "SHALL." The U.S. Code presently only "permits" the states to obtain social security numbers for certain limited purposes. And, as presently worded, any request for a social security number by a state must be done in compliance with the Privacy Act requirements. The Privacy Act provides: "It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number." But if this bill is approved with the proposed wording changes will become MANDATORY that all states "SHALL" require SSNs for ALL state-issued licenses and certificates the Privacy Act protections will become inconsequential. There has been a plan in the works for many years to make driver's license (DL) documents the de facto national ID. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has promoted this notion since at least 1979. Their plan was exposed in the "Driver's License Applicant Identification and Licensing System Security" guidelines booklet published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in conjunction with the AAMVA. On page 7, the AAMVA stated: "The AAMVA reiterates its position and the NHTSA concurs that social security numbers should be collected and used by each State licensing agency for purposes of interstate driver identification." (Booklet available from the AAMVA) Also in 1995, during Congressional hearings on ways to curb illegal immigration held before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the subject of national ID cards was openly discussed. A spokesman for the AAMVA, Marshall Rickert, Motor Vehicle Administrator, State of Maryland, acknowledged AAMVA's desire to establish a national ID system using social security numbers for identification in combination with driver's license cards. He said: "There has been much talk of a national identification card. The Oklahoma disaster supports such a concept and I would submit that such a system is already in place... the driver's license." "A key element of the [driver's licenses standardization] program is the development of a unique identifier which will allow a person to be tracked throughout North America. AAMVA is recommending that the social security number serve as the unique identifier and that the number be verified through the Social Security Administration prior to issuance [of a driver's license]." Recently, the AAMVA was instrumental in developing a national "social security number on-line verification" (SSOLV) system which licensing jurisdictions can use to verify an applicant's SSNs at the time a driver's license is issued. (A link regarding the SSOLV system is provided at the bottom of this page.) The AAMVA is a pseudo-private/quasi-governmental organization. It is regularly called upon by the DOT, the NHTSA, and by Congress to help establish national "public safety" and "traffic enforcement" policy for the country. Then it lobbies Congress to implement the governmental agencies' plans. It is also one of this country's leading promoters of the national DL/ID concept. The AAMVA is funded through dues paid by state motor vehicle administrative agencies. It is also my understanding that AAMVA receives money-either in the form of grants or as contract payments- for the governmental research projects it often conducts in partnership with the DOT and HTSA. The bottom line is that AAMVA's funding originates as taxpayer money. Consequently, taxpayers are paying for the lobbying effort TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL DL/ID SYSTEM which they themselves have consistently opposed. Ironic isn't it. The national DL/ID scheme has been intentionally implemented incrementally and surreptitiously. It began in 1996 when Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reform Act, (PRWORA) which required that in order for states to receive federal welfare funding they must collect social security numbers from "commercial driver's license" applicants. Then, in 1997 Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which included "technical corrections" to the PRWORA; the substance of which was to delete the limiting word "commercial" from the "commercial driver's license" clause thereby causing the SSN requirement to apply to ALL driver's license applicants. This supposedly minor "technical correction" impacted more than 6 million drivers in this country. And now the "Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998" proposes to once again "tweak" the SSN requirement; again under the false pretense of being a "technical correction." This bill will effectively consummate AAMVA's national DL/ID plan. One other point: H.R. 3130 also initiates the establish a national "instant check" database system which employers will be required to use for "screening" every new employee or job applicant against a national directory of child support order obligees. Employers will become the government's child support enforcement arm. No cardie, no workie. The wording of H.R. 3130 blatantly violates the principle of "dual sovereignty" which serves to protect the states from direct regulation by Congress. Relevant sections of the Brady Act were recently held unconstitutional under this principle. In the case of Sheriffs Richard Mack and Jay Prince v the United States the Supreme Court ruled that: "Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. ... The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." But the proponents of the national DL/ID plan have no regard for our constitution. Furthermore, if this bill passes it will be up to the states to challenge the requirement. In the recent past the states have shown little willingness to oppose unconstitutional mandates dished out by Congress (with few exceptions). And many of the states' driver's licensing officials SUPPORT these requirements anyway. Therefore, if this bill becomes law you can expect that it will be enforced by the several states. Good bye freedom, good bye liberty, good bye privacy, Hello Big Brother. This bill MUST BE STOPPED! An excellent link is provided below for contacting Congress members. Also included is the contact information for the key committee members which will be drafting the compromise bill. SM - CURRENT BILL STATUS: H.R. 3130 On April 23, 1998, the House disagreed to the Senate amendments, and requested a conference. The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendments, and modifications committed to conference: Archer, Shaw, Camp, Rangel, and Levin. We need to contact these committee members and insist that they remove the SSN reporting and database provisions. Contact information for these committee members is included at the bottom of this notice. It is my understanding that H.R. 3130 will have to go before the full House once again for final approval after the conference committee hashes out a compromise. As I find out more, I'll pass it along. Representative Bill Archer is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He is THE KEY MEMBER. ====================================================================== COMMITTEE MEMBERS PHONE FAX NUMBER Bill Archer (R- TX) 202-225-2571 202-225-4381 Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL) 202-225-3026 202-225-839 clay.shaw@mail.house.gov Dave Camp (R-MI) 202-225-3561 202-225-9679 davecamp@mail.house.gov Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) 202-225-4365 202-225-0816 rangel@mail.house.gov Sander M. Levin (D-MI) 202-225-4961 202-226-1033 slevin@mail.house.gov ====================================================================== The best page I've found for contacting members of Congress located at: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ You can also write your Congressman at: http://www.house.gov/writerep/ ====================================================================== [Following is an excerpt taken from the Congressional Record regarding the Roth amendment to H.R. 3130. Notice that it calles the SSN requirements a "technical" amendment-Right! Funny, this sort of deception used to be called "LYING".] [Page: S3184, 1998] "Technical and conforming amendments. There are several technical and conforming amendments made. The two most noteworthy amendments deal with data collection in the calculation of the adopting incentive payments and collection of Social Security numbers and are described below." "(1)[snipped] "(2) The 1996 welfare reform law requires states to collect Social Security numbers on applications for state licenses for purposes of matching in child support cases by January 1, 1998. The 'Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996' required states to collect Social Security numbers on applications for state licenses for purposes of checking the identity of immigrants by October 1, 2000. This amendment would conform the differing requirements by changing the date for child support cases to October 1, 2000, or such earlier date as the state selects." [The above statements taken from the Congressional Record are all either miss-statement of facts or half-truths, i.e. LIES.] [Excerpts from the Senate-approved version provided below.] [The first proposed change to U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(c) "clause (i)" is with regard to the provision in current law which presently says that states "may" use SSNs in their licensing programs. Currently, usage must be in conformity with the Privacy Act.] H.R.3130 Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 199 (Engrossed Senate Amendment) S.AMDT.2286 AMENDS: H.R.3130 AMENDMENTS SPONSORED BY: Sen Roth, (introduced 04/02/98) To provide a complete substitute. SEC. 403. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT. (a) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(c)) is amended- (1) in clause (i), by striking 'may require' and inserting 'shall require'; (2) in clause (ii)-- (A) by inserting after the 1st sentence the following: 'In the administration of any law involving the issuance of a marriage certificate or license, each State shall require each individual named in the certificate or license to furnish to the State (or political subdivision thereof), or any State agency having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security number of the individual.'; and B) by inserting 'or marriage certificate' after 'Such numbers shall not be recorded on the birth certificate'; 3) in clause (vi), by striking 'may' and inserting 'shall'; and 4) by adding at the end the following: '(x) An agency of a State (or a political subdivision thereof) charged with the administration of any law concerning the issuance or renewal of a professional license, driver's license, occupational license, or recreational license shall require each applicant for issuance or renewal of the license to provide the applicant's social security number to the agency for the purpose of administering such laws, and for the purpose of responding to requests for information from an agency operating pursuant to part D of title IV. If a State allows the use of a number other than the social security number to be used on the face of the document while the social security number is kept on file at the agency, the State shall so advise any applicants. (xi) All divorce decrees, support orders, and paternity determinations issued, and all paternity acknowledgments made, in each State shall include the social security number of each individual subject to the decree, order, determination, or acknowledgment in the records relating to the matter, for the purpose of responding to requests for information from an agency operating pursuant to part D of title IV.'. (b) RETROACTIVITY- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 317 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat.2220). SEC. 405. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTS. (a) Report On Feasibility of Instant Check System: Not later than December 31, 1998, the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives on the feasibility and cost of creating and maintaining a nationwide instant child support order check system under which an employer would be able to determine whether a newly hired employee is required to provide support under a child support order. ====================================================================== You can view the full bill on Thomas. http://thomas.loc.gov/ [Incidentally, if you access this bill on "Thomas," section 403 does not display on the main page. You have to click on section 402, then select "forward" in order to access section 403. Curious, ALL sections are normally shown???] ====================================================================== [Here are the amendment sponsors] S.AMDT.2286 AMENDS: H.R.3130 Apr 2, 98 Proposed by Senator Collins for Senator Roth. Cosponsors Sen Moynihan - 04/02/98 Sen Murkowski - 04/02/98 Sen Rockefeller - 04/02/98 Sen Baucus - 04/02/98 Sen Chafee - 04/02/98 Sen Kennedy - 04/02/98 Sen Abraham - 04/02/98 Sen Jeffords - 04/02/98 Sen Santorum - 04/02/98 Sen Grassley - 04/02/98 Sen Graham - 04/02/98 Sen Moseley-Braun - 04/02/98 ====================================================================== Here's the contact information for Senator Roth, should anyone wish to thank him... Sen. William Roth, Jr. (R-DE) 202-224-2441 comments@roth.senate.gov ====================================================================== Link to the AAMVA Social Security Number On-Line Verification (SSOLV) brag sheet: http://www.aamva.org/driver/documents/public/html/ssninfo.htm "I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do." - Edward Everett Hale You are welcome to visit my website, if you do let me know. Pastor John Stephen Brown preacher@link2000.net http://www.link2000.net/~preacher/ http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com Enjoy a 90 day free trial subscription to the email edition of The Vigo Examiner. To receive one to three of our top stories or editorials by email each day, send your request to Editor@Vigo-Examiner.com. --part0_895766491_boundary-- [------------------------- 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: MSNBC....... debate (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 17:37:51 PST On May 21, Ned Kelly wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] There is a debate going on right know on MSNBC on gun control It is, of course, surounding the school shootings in oregon. here are two ways you can get in on it. http://www.msnbc.com/chat/default.asp#join or opinion@msnbc.com they are also sohowing an 800 number to call if you tune in. Ned ****************************************************************** "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."......................... Frederick Douglass. ****************************************************************** [------------------------- 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 Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: CNN Poll on School Shooting in Oregon (fwd) Date: 21 May 1998 21:10:32 +0500 > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > http://www.cnn.com > > As of 6:40pm EST > > Who or what is most responsible for school violence? And it's a "vote early and often" site, too. The gun numbers are worsening. Let's get some effort going. Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: PROVEN SOLUTIONS TO ENDING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS Date: 22 May 1998 07:23:27 -0400 >Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 22:19:50 -0500 >From: "Chris W. Stark" >Reply-To: "Chris W. Stark" >To: email-subscribers@JPFO.org >Subject: PROVEN SOLUTIONS TO ENDING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS >X-Mailer: Chris W. Stark's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] > > ****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 > > 05/21/98 > -------- > > > ****URGENT!! CROSS POST FAR AND WIDE!!!**** > > >We apologize for the length of this e-mail. However, due to the >extreme severity of the problem we are now facing of more "gun >control", we feel strongly compelled to send this. Consider this >an emergency alert. > >Stand by for a media-driven panic. The recent murders committed by >a teenage boy at school in Oregon will stimulate more anti-firearms >rhetoric. There will be calls for more "gun control" and even >outright prohibition of all firearms. Defenders of liberty and the >Bill of Rights must be prepared to change the terms of the debate. > >JPFO members and other rights defenders should take the ideas >from this alert and send brief letters to their local newspapers >and legislators and governors. We need to beat the "gun >prohibitionists" to the punch ... if we don't, we can be sure >their lobbyists will be running unobstructed at full power. > >Understand.....we are moments away from seeing British & Canadian >style "gun control" be shoved down our throats. It always starts >with a crisis. Well, the gun prohibitionists crisis IS here. This >is now the 6th school shooting THIS YEAR ALONE. > >We either decide to become involved NOW, or prepare to see draconian >firearms laws, as we have never seen before in this land, this year. > >STAND UP AND BE COUNTED! IF YOUR NOT A MEMBER OF JPFO, THIS IS NOW >THE TIME TO BECOME A MEMBER. > >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. > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > PROVEN SOLUTIONS > > TO ENDING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS > copyright (c) by > Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership > > > > EDITOR'S NOTE: This exclusive interview, copyright (c) > by JPFO, puts to rest the ongoing debate of how to deal > with the ever increasing violence and bloodshed in > America's schools, by showing proven solutions (not just > theories) to the problem. Rest assured the answer is not > in more "gun control", as the gun prohibitionists would > want to brainwash America into believing. In fact, the > problem IS gun control. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >JPFO: Tell us about your background, and your involvement with >firearms, and the right to keep and bear arms. > >SCHILLER: The name is Dr. David Th. Schiller, currently residing >in the little town of Nassau, 70 km northwest of Frankfurt. I work >as editor-in-chief of VISIER, a 168-pages strong general interest >gun magazine which I started eleven years ago in Stuttgart and >which has now grown to be the most influential and best selling >gun magazine in all of Europe. Of course with a gun magazine >published in Germany, politics are at the forefront of our >editorial work, and we have an eye toward the past. NRA's Steve >Halbrook has been just over here and I was glad to help him with >his research on Jewish resistance during WW II. > >I was born in (West) Berlin in '52 in Germany, moved to Israel in >'72 and served in the Israel Defense Force's Airborne, which means >I am now a veteran of the '73 war, the Lebanese war, and a number >of border raids and actions in the occupied territories. Wounded in >1973 on Suez canal, I later studied political science at West >Berlin's Free University and mastered with a thesis on the origins >of the Civil War in Lebanon and a Ph.D. in '82 with a work on the >Palestinians' "love affair" with terrorism and paramilitary activity. >When I returned to Germany in '74-'75 for studies I was called upon >by the Berlin Police department to consult and teach their SWAT >team, which just came into being after the Munich massacre during >the Munich Olympics. Over the years this extended into a whole series >of work obligations with various police departments in Germany and >other places in the world. Due to my work in the Israel Defense >Force (IDF) as a drill instructor and weapons specialist and through >my academic interest, I had something to teach to these people. I >also worked some years for the terrorism research department of >Santa Monica's RAND Corporation, and have continued my academic >pursuits. > >Over the years I published a number of books on shooting, police, >terrorism, military history etc., most of these under the pseudonym >of "Jan Boger". You probably might find a photographic journal of >mine in English on the IDF, called "To Live in the Fire...", >published in 1977 by the John Olson Publishing Co. in New Jersey. > >As you can see, I experienced violence and gun control from both ends >of the barrel, one might say. And of course, I grew up to be a strong >believer in the personal right to self defense, especially as I spent >my childhood in the Berlin equivalent of the Bronx. > >JPFO: What kind of advice could you give the USA to combat the >recent school massacres that seemingly have become quite common upon >our soil? > >SCHILLER: Now for Jonesboro and the US gun control laws in regard to >schools: Way back in 1973 - '74 I lived in a Kibbutz in Northern >Israel, called Ramat Yochanan. During Passover week in '74 we in >Galilee experienced the first of a number of specific PLO attacks >targeting specifically schools and children houses, kindergartens, >school buses and the like. It started with an infiltration in Quiriat >Schmoneh on the Passover weekend, where the perpetrators found the >school empty and locked (of course during the holidays!) and took >over a nearby residential building, shooting people and in the end >blowing themselves up. A few weeks later the worst of this series >of incidents took place in Maalot on May 15th: Three PLO gunmen, >after making their way through the border fence, first shot up a >van load full of workers returning from a tobacco factory >(incidentally these people happened to be Galilee Arabs, not Jews), >then they entered the school compound of Maalot. First they murdered >the housekeeper, his wife and one of their kids, then they took a >whole group of nearly 100 kids and their teachers hostage. These >were staying overnight at the school, as they were on a hiking trip. >In the end, the deadline ran out, and the army's special unit >assaulted the building. During the rescue attempt, the gunmen blew >their explosive charges and sprayed the kids with machine-gun fire. >25 people died, 66 wounded. > >After this a controversial debate erupted in Israel in regards to >guns, self defense etc. We heard of course the same dumb arguments >by some good people, you always hear on these occasions like " We >do not live in the Wild West here!" Or: "Guns don't solve problems!" >or similar silly things. > >JPFO: Were there any gun laws in Israel in those days? > >SCHILLER: Now, one has to remember, that Israel still had and has >most of the old and very strict gun laws dating back to the days of >the British Mandatory (1918-1948) on the books, and we in the >promised land have meanwhile grown our share of idiotic bureaucrats >and dumb politicians, too. But with the help of some smart people, >not the least the then Commander-in-Chief, Northern Command Paratroop >General Raful Eytan, all the reservists on the settlements were >issued their personal weapons, and whoever had a clean track record >could get a concealed weapons permit. I for instance had and still >have one. > >JPFO: What happened then? > >SCHILLER: Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry >guns, schools were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding >them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip >without armed guards. The Police involved the citizens in a voluntary >civil guard project "Mishmar Esrachi", which even had its own sniper >teams. The Army's Youth Group program, "Gadna", trained 15 - 16 year >old kids in gun safety and guard procedures and the older high school >boys got involved with the Mishmar Esrachi. During one noted incident, >the "Herzliyah Bus massacre" (March '78, hijacking of a bus, 37 dead, >76 wounded), these youngsters were involved in the overall security >measures in which the whole area between North Tel Aviv and the resort >town of Herzlyiah was blocked off, manning roadblocks with the police, >guarding schools kindergartens etc. > >No problems with gun safety there, as most kids in Israel grow up >used to seeing guns on the street (in the hands of army personnel >on leave -- every soldier takes his/her gun home when on leave!). >When the message got around to the PLO groups and a couple >infiltration attempts failed, the attacks against schools ceased. >Too much of a risk here: Terrorists and other evildoers don't like >risks. > >But what does all that teach us? > >(A) schools/kindergartens make for very attractive targets for the >deranged gunman as well as for the profit-oriented hostage gangsters >or terrorist group, because: > >(1) everybody sane will cave in to the demands of the evildoers >(even somebody as hard-nosed as Golda Meir, may she rest in peace, >said during the Maalot incident, that one does not make politics >on the backs of one's children). Nobody wants to play the >principles-game when kids are involved. Kidnapping has thus often >resulted in the paying of ransom demands. > >(2) if you crave media attention, as for instance the PLO did in >the 70's, nothing will catch the headlines better than an attack >on a school-full of kids. > >(B) Now THAT is the underlying "reason" behind each and every >incident that involved killing sprees in schools... from Maalot >to Dunblane to Jonesboro. Only recently the French had a >hostage/barricade incident in a kindergarten: the guy wanted money, >and the French authorities solved that problem very neatly with a >stealth-type approach by one of their special teams and a .357 >bullet in the head of the perpetrator, when he refused to >surrender. No follow up imitations occurred in France. > >JPFO: Were there any similar incidents in Germany? > >SCHILLER: Germany has some of the strictest gun laws this side >of Britain and Japan And needless to say, they are a continuation >of the Nazi Gun Laws, even using the same wording. > >Still, we have a multitude of illegal guns on the streets. >Currently the police estimates that there a ten million legal, >licensed guns and 20 million illegal =97 in a total population of >less than 80 million people! And we had our school massacres, >too: In the early 60's one incident took place in Cologne >involving a deranged person who, not having access to guns, >built himself a flame-thrower. In another incident a few years >ago in the vicinity of Frankfurt, another crazy individual shot >his way through a school with two handguns, and later committed >suicide. > >Also, prior to the Lockerbie plane bombing (which was only one >item in a whole spree of planned and coordinated terror attacks >luckily foiled by the authorities), German security services >detected in September '88, that a Palestinian splinter group had >made plans for a raid on the Jewish kindergarten in Munich. We >found the photos, ground plans etc. Apparently the planning of >the attack was pretty far along. > >So you do not have to be a prophet to foresee, that we will see >more school-shooting incidents in the U.S. or other western >nations, where media attention is focused on these things and >where every incident is replayed second by second umpteen times >on the tube, thereby creating in the minds of certain viewers >examples to follow... > >Now, can we stop the media from playing out these scenarios in >full color and gruesome details for hours and hours, again and >again? Certainly not. We in the terrorism research field have >argued for decades that it was exactly the media coverage that >spurred more and each time more violent and extreme terrorist >incidents. Could we stop the media from advertising the terrorist >message? Certainly not. > >That is apparently one price we have to pay living in a worldwide >infotainment society. The airplane hijackings in the 70's and 80's >are a case in point. > >The only thing we can do is protect possible victims...And laws >written in some books will not achieve that. Never have, never will >...Enough said. I rest my case. > >JPFO: How can our readers and members contact you? > >SCHILLER: Our e-mail address is: visier@paulparey.de > >or my mailing address: > >Dr. David Th. Schiller >VISIER, P.O.Box 1363 >D-56373, Nassau, Germany > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >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 (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". >**************************************************************** > > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: GDP down 1% for every 10% increase in government Date: 22 May 1998 07:48:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Economist uses theory to explain economy" (headline in Collinsville Herald-Journal, February 8). When government grows, growth goes, academic researchers say Last updated 05/20/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT By Walter Williams James Gwartney and Randall Holcombe, economics professors at Florida State University, and Robert Lawson, an economics professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, have just completed a report for Congress' Joint Economic Committee. The title is "The Size and Function of Government and Economic Growth." The report points out, as just about every American knows, the expansion of the U.S. economy has now moved into its eighth year. It's been 15 years since a major recession. That's the good news. Despite this performance, the real rate of economic growth during the 1990s is less than half that achieved in the 1960s. In fact, our average rate of growth has fallen during each of the past three decades. Greater economic stability, but less rapid growth, has also been the pattern of other developed nations. Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson, using data from 60 nations, produce convincing evidence that there's a strong negative relationship between the size of government, increases in government expenditures and economic growth. In the case of our country, the authors conclude: If government expenditures, as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP), had remained at their 1960 level, the 1996 GDP would have been $9.16 trillion instead of $7.64 trillion. That translates into $23,440 in additional income for the average family of four. The authors also compared developed countries with the smallest increases in the size of government between 1960 and 1996 to those with the largest increases and looked at their growth rates. In 1960, government spending as a percentage of GDP in the United States, Iceland, Ireland, United Kingdom and New Zealand averaged 28.9 percent. The growth rate for those countries in 1960 averaged 4.3 percent. In 1996, government spending in those countries rose, averaging 39.1 percent, and their growth rates fell, averaging 2.7 percent. Developed nations with the largest increases in government size between 1960 and 1996 were Portugal, Spain, Greece, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In 1960, those governments spent an average of 28.1 percent of their GDP, and their growth rates averaged 6.4 percent. In 1996, government spending averaged 54.5 percent of GDP, and their growth rates fell to an average of 1.2 percent. From their statistical estimates, Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson show that for each 10 percent increase in government spending, there's a 1 percent decrease in the rate of growth. The authors are not anarchists; they acknowledge a critical role for government, namely that of providing the legal and physical infrastructure for the operation of the market and a limited set of public goods to provide a framework conducive to economic growth. As governments move beyond these core functions, however, they adversely affect economic growth through the disincentive effects of taxation, diminishing returns as government takes on activities for which it is ill-suited and government interference with the wealth-creation process. Governments aren't as effective as markets in adjusting to changing circumstances and discovering innovative production methods. The Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson study understates government size because it doesn't take into account its regulatory burden. But even with this minor shortcoming, will the study's persuasive argument and evidence lead Congress to reduce government size? I doubt it. The reason is that it is impossible for any of us to know or appreciate how much wealthier we would have been had government expenditures remained where they were when John Kennedy was president. In other words, how can a family of four know that it is $23,440 poorer because of Washington and its state and local governments? Creators Syndicate Inc. - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Missing USA Rocket Chips stolen by Red Chinese Date: 22 May 1998 08:07:18 -0500 (CDT) On May 21, 1998, 1:09 PM, Charles R. Smith (softwar@us.net) wrote: Let me make a few things clear about the missing cipher chips from the Loral Intelsat that crashed in China. First, according to Tony Snow, the Loral satellite crashed almost intact. It was only later, after the satellite was being dis-assembled by US technicians, that the chips inside were discovered to be missing. This rules out the possibility of the chips being lost in the crash and clearly indicates they were removed prior to the flight by someone. Second, these were not ordinary chips. There are already dozens of encryption chips on the market around the world but not this particular type. The Loral chips were designed to work in the harsh environment of space, blasted by radiation, intense heat, near absolute zero cold and vacuum. The engineering term is "hardened". Hardened chips are designed to function in space on a satellite. There is only one other environment which has similar characteristics of space. The environment inside an atomic blast. The Loral Intelsat chips are designed to work under the intense bombardment of gamma, x-ray and heavy particle radiation found inside the mushroom cloud of radioactive debris from a nuclear blast. There are some very obvious military uses for a "hardened" encrypted control chip. The "Self Destruct" is one feature controlled by code chips. Although, US ballistic missiles do not have a "self destruct" - feature the Russian and Chinese missiles reportedly do. The reason is simple. The Russians and Chinese do not trust their military. Another system that would make use of such secured control chips is known as FOBS (fractional orbiting bombing system). FOBS is simply a bus load of bombs parked in orbit. This bus is just like a school bus of children. Whenever the owner of the FOBS wants a bomb to unload and drop from orbit all that is needed is to issue the proper command codes. The FOBS system is actually deployed on the Russian SS-18 SATAN ballistic missile. For the SS-18 - "bus" is an accurate description of the warhead system. The orbiting platform is about the size of a school bus and it can dump as many as 8 thermonuclear warheads from low earth orbit. Yet one other feature is testing. Big missiles are expensive and sometimes known to fail. The Long March commercial satellite rocket has it's own evil twin which carries nuclear warheads for the Chinese 2nd Artillery Corps. The Long March also has a great history of spectacular failures. Tests to make sure the thing will work are mandatory. These test flights usually are equipped with sensors instead of a bomb. The sensors transmit the particulars of the test flight (e.g... load dynamics, g forces, control effects... etc.) as "telemetry". Ronald Regan once had an intense hissy fit with the Russians when they began to use encryption to scramble their missile test flight data. His argument was "trust but verify". Indeed, it is these words that should drive our high tech trade with China. We can trust if we can verify. The recent rejection by Chinese officials on the inspection of US built super computers sold to China is a denial of verification that they agreed to. The trade treaties which China signed with the US in order to obtain the computers in the first place, authorized such inspections. China agreed to the terms and signed. The communist Chinese denial of inspections are a clear violation of the signed trade agreements. We cannot verify that these super fast machines, so useful in missile and nuclear weapons design, are not being used for military purposes. The most amazing part is the Commerce Department went ahead and okayed the shipment of another super computer even though the Chinese government refused to allow a pre or post-sale inspection! In short, a reward for bad behavior and a broken agreement. Bill Clinton offers little to verify but exclaims we should trust him and the communist Chinese leaders. Clinton is to travel to Beijing shortly, to sign significant space and atomic energy deals. Bill Clinton has proven he gave China our advanced technology with no verification. Bill Clinton has proven that even Chinese violations of trade agreements are not enough to stop the sell, sell, sell juggernaut at the Commerce Dept. Bill Clinton has proven he will take Chinese money with no verification that it did not come from the People's Army. The question for all Americans now is can we trust President Clinton without verification? 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.us.net/softwar softwar@us.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Framing the Terms Date: 22 May 1998 10:41:40 -0500 (CDT) Skip Wayland Framing The Terms Like many of you, I get vexed about how we -- those who support our Nation1s Constitution, and the ideas upon which it was founded -- constantly appear to be the recipients of slanderous remarks from elitists who believe they have attained Nirvana and further believe that we are imbeciles for not following their leadership. Our ideas are continu- ally maligned by the innuendo and direct aspersions of these people. They are very effective at using catchy labels to frame our position while we have simply tried to counter their wild, irresponsible accusations with rational argu- ments leading to well-deliberated conclusions. In spite of our attempts to provide rationality to the issues we many times appear to be losing the battle for the hearts and minds of middle America because our opponents -- with media support -- persist in using sound bites that provoke a visceral effect against our cause. Our opponents don1t talk in terms of the academia or the judicatory when they malign us to the public, but we sometimes respond in that manner in our own defense, and when we do we are not understood by the vast majority of people in this nation who have a problem reading the Sunday comics. We find ourselves attempting to defend our position in an argument where the terms and definitions have been outlined by our opponents in feeling, not logic. Therefore a difficult task is made even more arduous because we allow ourselves to be placed in a position of using terms whose definition has been delineated by our adversary. We end up defending our doctrine against the terms defined by our antagonists rather than conveying our beliefs on the argument itself. This happens over and over again and yet we continue to allow ourselves to be brought into discus- sions wherein the language used is terms defined by the opposition. The following are some of the terms to which I refer: * Saturday Night Special * Cop Killer Bullets * Assault Weapons * Weapons Of Mass Destruction * Designed Only For Killing People * Sniper Rifle * High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Systems * Hair Trigger * Easily Accessible Firearms * Unregistered Firearm * Dum Dum Bullets * No Sporting Purpose + a bunch more that slip my mind at this point. As you read down that list it is very likely that each of those terms brought some image to your mind or evoked some gut reaction in you at some level. Why?? Why the reaction?? Some of those terms bring forth images that define a natural reaction against the item; like 3Cop Killer Bullets2. Other terms that we may have used in everyday language have been so skewed in their meaning over the years by our opponents that they now have a different meaning than they originally had, like 3Saturday Night Special2, which I always thought was a pretty good weekend price on beer and pizza. The point is that we, as a group who support the Constitu- tion and firearms ownership as defined by our Founders, must start defining the terms of the debate from our perspective. We must take the battle to our adversaries using terms that we define; terms that put them on the defensive. We must start paying attention to how we phrase things, and espe- cially make efforts to define terms that bring about the desired visceral effect in people who are open to impression on these issues and get most of their news in broadcast media sound bites. Not only must we define these terms, we also must come up with some mechanism to get these terms into the national mainstream. This is where our opponents do so well. They pick up on these little catch phrases and pass them around among themselves, and then start getting them into media sound bites, and before you know it everyone is using their terms - including us !! This situation must be reversed. We must all strive, by whatever means we have available, to put those who would deprive us of our liberties into a defensive posture that requires them to explain their position with regard to our ideas and terms. Yes, we must continue to offer cogent arguments that support our position. We have, thank good- ness, more and more very capable people who continue to join our camp on these issues. We must always continue to bring good, dedicated people into this conflict on our side. We must, however, strive to get all of those who support us to not only continue in the vein they are currently in but also to start thinking about the terms they use in framing their arguments. If the terms we use can be sharpened to paint a mental picture that elicits a positive portrayal of our position, or a negative portrayal of our opponent1s posi- tion, then we can start to present arguments that not only hold up in courts of law, but also the court of public opinion. I, for one, think it is worth a try. We can make it work by passing around ideas. There are a lot of us who are very sharp people who will, hopefully, start using our individual and collective wits to outwit the opposition on a very basic and effective level. But we need some mechanism to get this into the legal, legislative, and medical communities, the news media, and to pass this infor- mation around the Nation quickly so the terms that are introduced can get wide spread dissemination. The idea is to pass ideas, and not necessarily for anyone in particular to say that this idea is good and that one is bad. Perhaps a consensus on some terms can be reached at some level. I don1t know. This is just an idea I have. I hope someone out there in cyberspace agrees that it is a good one and will pick up the ball and run with it. Perhaps someone out there is willing to be the repository, collection, and dissemination point for this effort. Organizations that are experienced in the battle for our rights have the know-how and the wherewithal to put this together on a national level and make it work. There is nothing wrong with the major organizations working to accomplish their own objectives, BUT... on this one point of "Framing The Terms" all of the major, and minor, associates on our side of this debate must achieve a unified front if this effort is to have any effect what-so-ever. The NRA, GOA, LEAA, LSAS, JPFO, etc..etc..etc. must each make a positive step in this effort and start talking with each other regarding the terminology we use. We also need mechanisms to get it to those who can get it into sound bites. I1ll be happy to act as the ini- tial point of contact to get it started but someone else is needed to sustain it. I can offer a some suggestions for terms to consider, unfor- tunately I don1t know who first coined many of these. If some of these ideas sound sophomoric to you then get off your duff and come up with some of your own. 1. Always refer to a gun control advocate as a 3Victim Disarmament Extremist2 or 3Predator Advocate2 2. We should refer to ourselves as being 3ProChoice AND ProLife2 on the firearms issue. Or take the sting out of it and call yourself a: 3Self Defense Advocate2 3. Gun control of ANY nature should be viewed as a 3CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE2 in addition to any other manner in which it is addressed. 4. Firearms registration or firearms owner registration touted by the 3freedom hating left2 should be viewed as 3Pre-Confiscation Initiatives2 5. Inexpensive handguns (Saturday Night Specials) are 3Economically Viable Protection2 or simply 3Affordable Protection2. Attempts to outlaw inexpensive firearms for defensive use should be viewed as an effort to deprive the less fortunate or economically challenged of their CIVIL RIGHTS because it deprives these people of the most effective means to defend themselves and their families against predators of all kinds. 6. Firearms training is 3Life Assurance Training2 or maybe 3Family Self Defense Training2 7. Concealed carry license can be 3Predator Neutralization License2 or 3Family Life Assurance License2 or "Victim Protection Measures" or "Threat Reduction Measures. While we're at it... why do we as a people even toler- ate our government licensing us to carry the tool that is most effective in protecting the well-being of ourselves and our families. We should have a Vermont- style right to carry and protect ourselves. Isn't that, in fact, what our Founders intended??? Why do we keep voting in representatives who support "Innocent Victim Disarmament". 8. Expand upon the GOA premise that 3Guns Save Lives2. They do... We know it... Let1s talk about it - IN PUBLIC!! Every pro-gun organization in existence should be on this bandwagon!!! GUNS SAVE LIVES !!! 9. Always refer to the bad guys as 3Predators2 along with other appropriate pejorative terms like 3thieves2, 3rapists2, etc. 10. Firearms owner lists in government possession are: ORound Up Lists2 or "Pre-Holocaust Victim Identifica- tion Lists". 11. Any government-required fee for firearms licenses, Brady-type checks, etc. should be referred to as a 3Another Gun Tax2, 3Civil Rights Violations2, 3Firearms Infringement2 12. Charlton Heston (of 3Moses2 & 3people-shouldn1t-be- able-to-own-AK-47-type-weapons2 fame) FINALLY got it right recently when he referred to Barbara Streisand as the 3Hanoi Jane2 of the anti-gun movement. 13. Eddy Eagle should become a National Hero. Other simi- lar symbols for firearms safety or freedoms should be developed and/or expanded upon. JPFO has a very good series that should be brought into the mainstream. This information is needed now in our "Youth Propaganda Camps", commonly called public schools. Every pre- puberty kid in the Nation should know who these symbols are and the positive side of what they represent. Our kids are this Nation1s future and we continue to allow the fanatical left, victim-disarmament teacher's unions to indoctrinate our children into believing that guns are bad and so are the people who own them. 14. Those in the opposition should be referred to as screw- balls, crackpots, extremists, etc. Although I don1t normally agree with calling anyone names but it may get mainstream people thinking that we do have a valid point. I, for one, certainly am of the opinion that many of the Hollywood elite, who donate millions to efforts that would negate our Bill of Rights, can and should be referred to as 3crackpot elitist extremists2. 15. Let1s face it... Jim Brady getting shot was a tragedy. An even larger tragedy is that Sara Brady has become quite wealthy from cynical exploitation of his misfor- tune. Additionally, her efforts have helped build an empire on the bodies of those innocent victims who were denied access to defensive firearms because of Brady checks, mandatory waiting periods, and the defeat of concealed carry legislation that she has been instru- mental in effecting. As a community dedicated to restoring and maintaining our liberties how can we give Sara Brady a free pass to continue her 3Victim Disarma- ment2 work without calling her to task for it at every opportunity??? She is getting rich making speeches to outlaw our freedoms and yet we seldom see anything in print anywhere that says this is happening. Why? (QUOTABLE QUOTES: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, "The Na- tional Educator," January 1994, Page 3. (unverified information provided to me, recently)" 16. Gun control legislation is literally: 3Job Safety For Criminals2 or 3The Safe Streets For Criminals Act/Bill/Law/Regulation2 We ALL need to get together on this effort. I'm sure that some of the descriptive phrases we glean from this will be worth the effort, both to our cause and to our funny-bone. Maybe this epistle will get the ball rolling. Hopefully this will spark some interest in getting the scoreboard numbers up in our favor by establishing a system that offers coordination of 3reasonable terms2 that can be used within this debate. If everyone takes a few minutes to think about this I1m sure we1ll have some terms to use that will gain the initiative and turn the tide. Give this a shot... what have you got to lose?? There is a whole lot to gain. Let me know. And... will someone please step forward and volun- teer to be a coordination point for this effort should it get off the ground. Please feel free to pass this along to anyone who is interested in regaining our freedoms and rights in a lawful, peaceful manner. Peace, Skip Wayland "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948); American historian and educator ------------ PEACE ------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: For the Children (fwd) Date: 22 May 1998 12:54:00 PST On May 19, Liberty or Death wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- For the Children by Sarah Thompson, M.D. A friend who serves on the Board of a child abuse prevention organization recently wrote to me asking for any insights I might have regarding the hostility of so-called "pro-child" organizations towards "pro-gun" organizations. He correctly pointed out that most "child advocacy" groups have a phobic reaction towards firearms. Discussions about these issues usually degenerate into black and white thinking and name-calling: conservatives vs. liberals, Democrats vs. Republicans, pro-gun vs. anti-gun. Gun owners are often accused of "not caring" about children, as if their ownership of a firearm indicated their enthusiastic support of tragic accidents. Name-calling is never a productive method of resolving differences.=20 And as my friend points out, the vast majority of gun owners also love and care about children. After much thought, it occurred to me that the issue is _not_ who is "pro-child" and who is "anti-child". It's not a holier than thou contest over who is _more_ "pro-child". The real questions are "Why should one care about children?" and "What does it mean to be "pro-child"? Unfortunately, most "child advocacy" groups never address either of these questions. They accept as gospel that the welfare of children is more important than, and takes precedence over, all other concerns, and they arrogantly assume that only they know the proper way to be "pro-child". They're wrong on both counts. These groups need to examine their values and goals. Until their values and goals are clearly defined, they cannot advocate consistent and coherent programs for the welfare of children. Most members of child welfare organizations are, like my friend, good people who truly care about children and have the most honorable intentions. Unfortunately, a few groups, most notably the Children's Defense Fund and many gun control organizations, shamelessly use children to advance their tyrannical agendas. By doing so, they tarnish the reputations of those people who sincerely love and care about children, especially those parents who believe that _they_ are responsible for their own children. By shamelessly exploiting children, such groups cleverly manage to bypass all rational and logical evaluation of their proposals and policies. All discussion is reduced to name-calling; either you agree with them, or you're somehow "anti-child". While these groups loudly congratulate themselves for caring about "the children", in fact they are guilty of child exploitation, which they themselves consider a form of abuse. Our current society accepts it as a "given" that everyone should care about children, and that the survival of children is more important than the rights, concerns or survival of adults. But this is _not_ an inviolable law of nature as some would have us believe; it's an extremist position no more worthy of respect than the advocacy of child abuse. And, in reality, this attitude developed rather late in human history. =20 Until fairly recently, children were considered property, no different from slaves. Adults had children in order to have workers for their farms, ranches and households. As recently as the late 18th century, orphans and poor children were bought by companies, usually for only the price of their keep. The minimum working age wasn't raised to ten years old until the late 19th century, and modern child labor laws are only about 60 years old. The murder of female infants was widely practiced throughout this century, and still persists in some areas.=20 And of course, many ancient civilizations engaged in child sacrifices. Both positions are extreme, opposite ends of the pendulum swing of adult attitudes towards children. I'm not condoning child slavery or sacrifices, nor do I condone the view that children are the only humans who matter. I am suggesting that we need to find a more balanced position between these extremes. To do this, we must examine why we should value children and what it means to care for them. At the most basic level, we value our own children as a means of perpetuating our own genetic makeup. So we value and protect the children of our own tribe or community, or perhaps just our own biologic children. This trait is also seen in many animal species where the mother will protect only her young, and males may kill the offspring of another male. At a slightly more abstract level, we value children as a means of continuing the human race. If we did not procreate, humans as a species would become extinct. All animal species share this biological imperative to reproduce. At this level, we value the survival of not just our own children, but _all_ children. On a more abstract level, we value children because they represent potential. They quite literally embody our hopes, dreams and ideals for the future. They will be the masters of a future we will never see. Only humans, who are self-aware and aware of their own mortality, can value children for their role in the future. At this level we value not just the survival of all children, but their potential to advance our race and improve our world. For thoughtful humans, there are biological, psychological, and ideological reasons for caring about children. It makes sense for us to protect them until they are able to protect themselves, and it also makes sense to prepare them for the role they will play in the future of humanity. Both protection and preparation are necessary. It is not enough merely to ensure a child's physical survival until he reaches adulthood; it is essential to prepare him to fulfill his duties as an adult. This leads directly to the next question, i.e. "What does it mean to be pro-child?" Our current society behaves as if being pro-child requires the worship of children and everything about them. Children are seen as being the perfected form of humanity, who gradually deteriorate into adults.=20 Children are beautiful, innocent, wise, and completely incapable of evil. Anyone who dares to point out that children are often dirty, noisy, rude, mean, and exasperating is immediately labeled a "child-hater", when these traits are known to all parents, teachers, and others who interact with children. Children can also be evil. Our inability to understand the recent tragedy in Jonesboro is a direct result of our current taboo against stating the obvious. There have always been, and always will be, children who are evil, and these children generally grow up to be evil adults. In some, but not all, cases, adults can intervene and help such children to become functional members of society, but the fact remains that all children are not good. Worshipping children is a form of idolatry, and as such is forbidden by all Western religions. Worse, regarding children as the perfected form of humanity is completely irrational. Children are essentially savages until they are civilized by adults. Children are incapable of creating or maintaining a civilization. Virtually every advance in human philosophy, science, art and technology was developed by an adult. While adults are often admonished to become more "child-like", that is not the same as encouraging adults to behave like self-centered and irresponsible children. Columnist Barbara Ehrenreich said it a bit more humorously: "A child is not a salmon mousse. A child is a temporarily disabled and stunted version of a larger person, whom you will someday know. Your job is to help them overcome the disabilities associated with their size and inexperience so that they get on with being that larger person." My local children's hospital proudly advertises its motto: "Children First and Always". This is not only offensive, it's idiotic. Our role as adults is not to turn the entire world into a universal Disneyland for children, nor to turn all adults back into children.=20 Our role is to help children to become adults who can thrive and prosper in the real world. Our role is to create adults who are at least as competent, wise and productive as we are. In other words, children must be helped and taught to adapt to a world of adults. Adults should not be forced to adapt to a world suited only to children. Children must gradually mature from the world of childhood to the world of adulthood. They must be taught responsibility, empathy, productivity, and other human values. They need to learn that there are certain things adults can do, and certain rights and privileges that adults have, that they must earn through maturity and responsibility. If we are to rear children successfully, we must first ask ourselves what kind of adults we wish them to become. We cannot hope to achieve our child-rearing goals if we don't first define them. What kind of future, and what kind of people do we want to leave as our legacy? Do we want our children to enjoy the blessings of liberty? Do we want them to be strong, brave, competent, and productive? Do we want them to be capable of living in a difficult and complex world? Do we want them to be able to face the inevitable dangers of life with wisdom?=20 Do we want them to be able to defend themselves, their own children, and their communities, in order to ensure the survival of humanity? Or do we want our children to live as pampered and protected slaves?=20 Do we want them to be weak, unchallenged, untested, and impotent? Do we want them to be so dumbed down and so frightened that they will willingly and gratefully accept the yoke of oppression? Do we want to leave a legacy of defenseless sheep, ill-equipped even to survive? Once we answer those questions honestly, we can see through the rhetoric of "pro-child" and "anti-child". If our children are to be strong, they must successfully face some adversity. If they are to be brave, they must successfully face danger. If they are to be wise, they must have the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them.=20 If they are to be competent, they must learn a wide variety of skills. If they are to survive, they must learn to protect and defend themselves. Most important, they must learn that the world is their domain, but it was not designed for their comfort, safety or convenience. Our role as adults should be to protect the natural rights of children because children cannot always protect themselves. We must protect them from the worst abuses and threats to their survival. But we cannot, and should not, lock them in a cotton candy cocoon or confine them to a life completely devoid of challenge. Instead, we must guide, educate and empower children so that they can take their proper place as defenders of rights when they become adults.=20 - From this perspective, our course as adults and as parents is much clearer. Drugs, alcohol and tobacco have existed throughout human history, so banning them is not possible and for the most part not even desireable. Rather children should be educated about the risks and benefits of these substances. Their use should be restricted or supervised by parents until the children are mature enough to be responsible for their own decisions. And as adults we need to be willing and available to guide and support them when they make mistakes. Likewise we should not ban anything and everything that might be harmful to the smallest child. It is the responsibility of parents to protect their children from danger and to decide what entertainment and activities are appropriate for their children. As adults we should not ignore a child in danger or distress, but we are not required to devote our entire lives to children, or restrict ourselves only to activities appropriate for children. As my friend L. Neil Smith says, "We cannot childproof the world, so we must worldproof our children." =20 Children do have rights, but adults have rights which are broader and more comprehensive than those of children. This nation was founded by adults, for adults and our government is based on adult philosophy and responsibility. Therefore, our role as adults must not be to destroy the rights of adults and render them as powerless as small children.=20 Such a plan would not only endanger the adults, it would leave them unable to properly care for their children. Education must not be sanitized to the level of a "Barney" cartoon.=20 All people have equal rights, but all people are not equal and even the smallest child knows this. Some children are prettier or smarter or have more toys. To pretend otherwise is not only useless, it impairs children's ability to deal with reality as well as their ability to trust adults. We mustn't fake reality and it's wrong to teach kids to try to fake reality. Fantasy is a necessary part of childhood, but children must gradually learn to separate fantasy from reality. Likewise, history is not about nice people doing wonderful things for each other. It's about challenges, triumphs and failures, creativity and invention. It's the story of wars, of hatred based on race, religion and ethnicity, of battles for land and property. It's the endless cycle of freedom and tyranny. It's the story of individual humans overcoming their human limitations and doing great things, and of humans surrendering to their worst and basest instincts and creating unimaginable horrors. If children are to make rational choices, they must first learn the results of the choices others made before them. Children must also learn how to protect and defend themselves. They need to be taught basic hygiene, how to cross streets, fire safety, water safety, and what to do if they encounter a firearm. They need to know how to contact parents and where to find a trustworthy adult should they need assistance. Defending oneself does not necessarily involve the use of violence.=20 Children must learn when to fight and when to walk away. They need to be taught problem solving skills and conflict resolution skills. They must learn to resolve conflicts with words instead of force whenever possible. Children need to learn not only to defend themselves against other children, but also against predatory adults, inappropriate sexual advances, kidnappers and other criminals. They must learn how to deal with attacks from domestic animals, and also wild animals if they are to be safe while exploring the outdoors. =20 It is cruel and unfair to frighten children with awful stories of the terrible things that may befall them without also giving them the skills to deal with these threats. It is irresponsible to delude ourselves that we can eliminate all potential dangers, because we cannot. So we must teach children the skills and knowledge necessary to successfully protect themselves from these dangers, while supporting and shielding them with our own greater knowledge and skills. Each time a child successfully deals with a threat, no matter how minor, his competence for dealing with future threats grows, and he becomes more confident and less fearful. With respect to firearms, it is obvious that the only rational course of action is to teach children how to co-exist with guns safely and responsibly, i.e. the N.R.A.'s Eddie Eagle or a similar program for small children and safe handling instructions for older youth. Any child who does not learn how to deal with firearms safely will be at the mercy of anyone with a firearm, and it doesn't really matter whether that person with a firearm is an irresponsible gun owner, a criminal, or a member of an invading military force. =20 Every generation born this century has been called upon to fight for our country. While we rightly hope for a more peaceful world for our children, that peace will only come through strength and knowledge, not through ignorance, cowardice and fear. Disarmament can only bring tyranny, not peace or freedom. Gun owners and child advocates should not see each other as adversaries. In fact, they should have the same goal: ensuring that our children will inherit a nation where their rights and liberty are protected, and where they have the skills and tools to defend those rights against those who would usurp them. Unfortunately, the agendas of the most militant "child advocates" are usually overtly anti-child and anti-civilization. Forcing children to share all their toys will not teach them to respect property rights.=20 Encouraging children to turn in their parents for casual drug use actively destroys the most basic family unit and creates distrust between parents and children. Telling a child that her father doesn't love her and is going to die and abandon her because he smokes cigarettes is blatant child abuse. =20 Punishing a child for sharing her asthma inhaler with another child in severe respiratory distress because such behavior violates zero tolerance "drug abuse" rules is even worse. Such actions discourage children from helping others, confuse them about what is right and wrong, and demonstrate that adults cannot be trusted to judge them fairly. They also do nothing to combat real drug abuse and make it more likely that children will distrust and disregard any information adults give them about legitimate drug dangers. Teaching children that all men are potential rapists does nothing to encourage boys to learn responsible behavior and damages girls' abilities to form trusting relationships with men. Valuing "feeling good about oneself" over the real knowledge and competence that lead to true self-esteem discourages children from gaining knowledge and competence. This leaves them unprepared to function in the world, making them more susceptible to the promises of those who offer them safety in exchange for their freedom. If we could lock all children into sterile, padded, risk free bubbles until they turned eighteen, or twenty-one, or twenty-four, or whatever age we determine they're no longer "children", child mortality would approach zero. And in fact if saving the lives of children were our only goal, we would all be busy building these kiddie bubbles. But we all know that while such a plan would save lives, the beings who emerged from the bubbles would not be truly human. Clearly then, our goal is not just the preservation of the lives of children but the creation of competent, intelligent, responsible, creative adults. Saving the life of "just one child" is simply not a good enough excuse for the enslavement of millions of others. The next time someone advocates doing something "for the children" ask yourself a few simple questions: Is the alleged threat real, and what is the actual risk to my child? Is this plan realistic and feasible? What will it cost? What possible adverse effects to my child could result from this plan - - both short term and long term? Will the plan help my child to understand and cope with reality? Does it falsify reality in any way? Will this plan make my child stronger, smarter, or more competent, or will it leave her weak, fearful or confused? Who stands to gain if this plan is put into effect? How will this plan affect my individual family and my individual children? What effects will this plan have on my children twenty years from now? Does this plan infringe upon my rights as a parent? Does this plan infringe upon the rights of others? How will this plan affect my child's future as a free and responsible adult? If you answer these questions thoughtfully and honestly, you'll be in a much better position to evaluate who's "pro-child" - and who's not.=20 The results may surprise you. For example, all children are now required to have social security numbers virtually from the time they're born. Supposedly, these social security numbers are intended to help prevent tax fraud.=20 However, now there are proposals to use social security numbers to track children's health care and immunizations as well as their performance in school. This information will be kept in permanent government databases. Is this a good idea? Is there a threat to your child? Assuming you're a responsible parent, no. We're told that this is necessary because "some parents" are irresponsible, and "some children" don't get immunizations. But what does that have to do with _you_ and _your child_? Do you really want all of your child's personal information placed in a government database because someone _else_ failed to get his child immunized?=20 What if you're a responsible parent who is worried about the possible adverse effects of vaccines? Should your child be penalized for the rest of his life because of your decision? Is the plan realistic and feasible? For the most part, yes. Almost all infants now have social security numbers. However, it will cost quite a lot of money to computerize all school and health records by social security numbers. Who should pay for this? What possible adverse effects could this have on my child short term and long term? In the short term, anyone with access to the database can cause serious and permanent damage to you and your child. Should your child show up at school with a few bruises, teachers can check the database and find out that you decided against vaccines. You may then find yourself charged with child abuse. Should your child have an abusive teacher, you may choose to transfer him to a different school so he can get a new start. Unfortunately, the new teacher at the new school will be able to read the old teacher's reports that your child "has behavior problems, doesn't respect authority, and is slightly retarded". In the long term, what happens when your child applies to college, for a job, or for the military? Is it really relevant that he had difficulty with math at age 13, or that his 5th grade teacher thought he had "poor leadership qualities"? Will this plan help your child to understand reality? Unfortunately, yes, assuming we are willing to accept a reality in which all of us have been numbered, fingerprinted, and had our most personal information entered into government files. Is this the reality we wish to create for our children? Will this plan make my child stronger, braver and more competent, or will it leave her fearful, weaker and confused? It may have no effect. But it's quite possible that your child's hopes, dreams, and potential may be permanently destroyed because her "file" states she is a poor learner - and all her future teachers and employers accept this at face value. Or perhaps she'll be labeled a "malingerer" because she has undiagnosed allergies or other medical conditions. Who stands to gain if this plan is put into effect? The state, which will gain a complete database on every citizen. Advocates of national health care, who will gain a universal medical database for each person, making it "unnecessary" for people to have "personal physicians". Teachers and employers who wish to "track" children into career paths based on their elementary school performance. How will this plan affect my individual family and my individual child? Only you can determine that. But if you deviate in any way from what the "experts" say is the proper way to raise your child, it's almost certain your child will suffer. So if you object to vaccines, or send your child to a religious school, or homeschool, or refuse to allow your child to attend in-school clinics that dispense birth control, or rear your child as a vegetarian, your child and your family may be victimized. What effect will this have on my child twenty years from now? It's unlikely such databases will be destroyed when your child reaches 18 or earns his high school diploma. It's more likely that the database will be expanded and made available to employers, colleges, police, doctors, insurance companies, and our ever-growing "lifestyle police". What will be entered in the database of the girl who was punished for "drug dealing" when she tried to save the life of another girl? What about the six-year old found guilty of "sexual harassment" for kissing a little girl on the cheek? What about a high school student who tells his teacher he believes public schools are unconstitutional? Clearly this plan infringes on your rights as a parent as well as the rights of all other parents, and all children. And equally clearly, this plan will seriously interfere with your child's ability to live his life as a free and responsible adult. Are mandatory social security numbers, and school and medical databases really good for "the children"? Or are "the children" being exploited to further the aims of those who would steal their freedom? If you're truly "pro-child", you'll think about these issues carefully and independently, and you'll teach your children to do the same. Feedback is, as always, encouraged. PLEASE DO NOT use the "reply" button to reply. (I'm still working on a majordomo fix.) Use the address the_righter@therighter.com for all correspondence regarding this column. Remember that ALL COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ATTRIBUTION UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY REQUEST CONFIDENTIALITY. Due to the volume of mail I receive, I'm unable to respond to all e-mail. I will however _read_ all comments provided they are sent to the correct address and are civil in nature. Hate mail will be used for target practice. < Permission is granted for individual distribution of this column as long as no changes are made, full attribution is given and this message is left intact. Re-publication, whether print or electronic, requires the permission of the author. To subscribe to The Righter column send a message to majordomo@aros.net. In the BODY of the message put "subscribe righter-list" (without the "quotes"). Let me know if you have problems. =A91998 Sarah Thompson, M.D. the_righter@therighter.com http://www.therighter.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5 iQEVAwUBNWH9CNfaQ3zqMQjXAQGo3ggAmZd5qdW1LXmZ6GlVgb2I4wyxaSFj1HzF XfqQ9AhxtvBIjz6FTE6xSXG5phC9f8VCjkEceMGp8iRa7MHLYMn7FlcSKyVvDNZz 41zQav5C1/rukw1cf0eukdZq4NW8wphYUzL9wEH2xKDPPUt1k8nLk7fk/tLMAFCD XKjRthb5UmDKKu0saHSoO+JeT5l7cExaQgQ9t4b7EAvHyDKgsSK7vbBAWfUgKSCX kjedfvQJ4LQDlwnd887DWOoP+75QxXT0QzZPYaw5ucCPJSnnMlj/LpmEIjLA+lvb PcptAb33Dw5VQ2Irzw2K77dSVxneEaPkLtb8S/kj+tqAaA+GzKdY1A=3D=3D =3DgqOu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://proliberty.com/observer [------------------------- 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: _TV_Causes_Murder_ Date: 22 May 1998 14:23:06 PST As a bit of side ammo, there was a study done some years ago by a Dr. Centerwall (sp?). It's referenced in a book by Michael Medved, which if I caught the title right, is called, "Hollywood Versus America". Anyway the subject studied was the effect of TV on areas that didn't previously have TV. The study has been updated, and the results show among other things, that: 1. Academic studies decline, and 2. The Murder Rate _doubles_. Just a little something to stuff down the throats of the Media Apologists. -- ***** 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: BBC Poll - Should America ban handguns? (fwd) Date: 22 May 1998 23:02:11 PST On May 22, Grubb, Ken wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Yes or no? You make the call http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_98000/98717.asp [------------------------- 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 Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Date: 23 May 1998 08:51:19 +0500 Brad Alpert 1551 SW 25 Kingsville, MO 64061 (816) 720-3353 Editor: Sarah Brady and her fellow would-be gun banners are - once again, and predictably - dancing in the blood of the victims of the latest school tragedy. Here's a dose of reality for them. The 15-year old criminal who massacred his parents and schoolmates in Springfield, Oregon (one day after having been released by the police instead of facing multiple state and federal felony gun charges) broke - at minimum - the following gun laws. State: Carrying a concealed weapon/2 counts Purchase of stolen firearm/at least 1 count Possession of stolen firearm/at least 1 count Armed criminal action/dozens of counts Federal: Possession of a firearm on school grounds/4 counts (Gun Free School Zone law) Use of firearm in commission of violent felony/dozens of counts The media and gun prohibitionists' answer to this latest media-induced copycat tragedy? Why, more gun control laws, of course! In closing, I have a question for the folks who want more gun control laws in response to this tragedy: If a drunken driver has a head-on collision and kills five innocent people, would you blame the booze? Or would you blame the car? Brad Alpert - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) Date: 23 May 1998 12:05:05 PST On May 22, Terry Walker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] -----Original Message----- >[forwarded message] >=================================================================== >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrick Poole [mailto:ppoole@fcref.org] >Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 11:21 AM >To: 'ScanThisNews' >Subject: FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER > >Re: This is why we DON'T need biometrics in our banking system. FYI. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Privacy Concerns [SMTP:PvtConcern@aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 3:54 PM > To: List Member > Subject: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER > >This message is sponsored by: > > SiteOwner.com > The Ultimate Bookmark for Web Site Owners! > Free tools for promoting and analyzing your site. > http://www.siteowner.com/ > > May 15, 1998, a South Carolina businessman entered First Union Bank to cash >a Check given him by his customer on her bank for CONTRACTED services >performed by him. He presented the check and his driver's license for >identification. The teller asked if he had an account there, and when the >answer was 'no', he was informed he must also place his thumbprint on the >check. He asked the teller to verify the check by calling his customer; >reminding her of the bank's CONTRACT with their customer. > >She refused to do so, but made three other phone calls, while he waited. He >repeated his request for honoring the check, reminding her she had his DL >and his fingerprints are his personal property and not required to be given >to anyone. The branch manager came to the desk and said that Richland County >[deputies] were on the way. He asked to make a phone call and permission was >granted before the FIVE deputies arrived. He was asked to leave by deputies >while making the call (verified by deputy in question to teller). Deputy >removed phone from his hand, forced him out of the bank, cuffed him and took >him to jail. All this in front of his wife, his three small children, who >were by now crying, and all the other customers in First Union. He spent the >night in jail, and lost the following day's work while in detention. All >this for attempting to protect his right to privacy. > > First Union claims it is looking for fraudulent checks. Are its customers >aware their accounts and check-writing are being questioned by their own >bank? Are they aware their checks are being DISHONORED by THEIR bank, where >their accounts are being held? Since when does any third party private >business have the right to demand your personal property, your fingerprints, >in order to close a business transaction for contracted services provided? > > Are we to be considered criminals because we are not regular customers of >that bank? > > Is FIRST UNION aware that their PRIVATE policy is NOT LAW. There is no such >LAW, and therefore violates the people's rights in South Carolina? NATION'S >BANK has joined in this PRIVATE policy decision, as has the FIFTH THIRD >BANKS in Ohio and Kentucky. Are these the kind of banks with which you want >to do business? > > We are not the criminals, the funds in your banking facility are YOURS, not >the banks and not government. We do NOT wish to be coerced into opening >accounts in banks for more government intrusion. This is NOT protection of >our accounts it is invasion of privacy and attempted government >control..simply put, "theft" of your personal property. > > Last, we must hold law enforcement accountable for their actions. The >police are "experts who have the higher knowledge of the law". Our tax >dollars provide training, seminars, and all manner of classes at our >expense. > > Heavy handedness, snap judgements, assault, disrespect, and arrogance >should not have to be tolerated for the purpose of running "customers" >through the Judicial meat market. > > This article was contributed by Mr Lee Griggs. He can be reached at >lgriggs@msegroup.com > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent via ListBot. To remove yourself > from this list, please visit http://www.listbot.com/remove.html > Get a free mailing list for your web site @ http://listbot.com/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------- >[end forwarded message] >=================================================================== [------------------------- 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: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) Date: 23 May 1998 15:35:57 -0700 What bank was the check drawn on?? I think it's a hard case in todays world to argue that presenting checks on a third bank should be easy (IMHO this is wrong, Im not excusing it just stating reality as seen through my bottle bottom glasses). But as I understand it (and it's unclear now that I reread it) this was a check written on the bank to wich it was presented. IE payor handed our guy a first union check. Is that true? If not then he should have been talking to the payor rather then trying to enforce the payors contract with a 3rd member bank of the check clearing system. If on the other hand, this was a first union check written by a first union customer to a non first union recipient (our guy) then the whole thing is even scarier. If refusing to be thumb printed is probable cause for detention, then I know what me and my lawyer are doing teusday afternoon. Can anyone confirm this post? Anyone know what the fellow was -charged- with that allowed him to be cuffed? What city in SC was this branch in? (We need phone numbers here for the branch, the PD and the district attorney.) It would be great if something important like this came with more data. Boyd (I do not argue contract law with bank tellers) Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Date: 23 May 1998 15:24:49 -0700 Brad, I hope you send your post in it's entirety to BBC's discussion page (see bills post about the poll). Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Date: 23 May 1998 17:46:05 +0500 > Brad, I hope you send your post in it's entirety to BBC's discussion page > (see bills post about the poll). Boyd Thanks Boyd, but my experience (and others, now) with that site is that it won't accept any new pro-gun postings. What has been your experience with it? I composed a statement on it last night and when I submitted it, there was a network error and my post was gone. Others who have successfully gotten past that point are still waiting to see their posts on the site. I think it's a rigged deal. Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Date: 23 May 1998 16:09:06 -0700 Yeah, well at the risk of painting a big red MS target on my face the first thing I noticed there was the page was a ".asp". I don't plan on looking for my post there for a couple days. Boyd (I -like- NT, it keeps support people like me paid) Kneeland At 5:46 PM +0500 5/23/98, Brad Alpert wrote: >> Brad, I hope you send your post in it's entirety to BBC's discussion page >> (see bills post about the poll). Boyd > >Thanks Boyd, but my experience (and others, now) with that site is >that it won't accept any new pro-gun postings. What has been your >experience with it? > >I composed a statement on it last night and when I submitted it, >there was a network error and my post was gone. Others who have >successfully gotten past that point are still waiting to see their >posts on the site. > >I think it's a rigged deal. > >Brad > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Date: 23 May 1998 18:21:02 +0500 > Yeah, well at the risk of painting a big red MS target on my face the first > thing I noticed there was the page was a ".asp". I don't plan on looking > for my post there for a couple days. > Boyd (I -like- NT, it keeps support people like me paid) Kneeland I just ran across this info, it's interesting. Looks like "rigged" pegged it, eh? > I, too, went to the BBC Site, as soon as I saw yesterday's alert > here on PRN, and found the same results you have reported above. > > I went there again just a few minutes ago to check the voting trend > again and was disturbed by what I saw. > > Consequently, I sent the following to the BBC email address: > > > Subject: Talking Point > > Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 11:59:20 -0700 > > From: "David M. Doyle" > > To: newsonline@bbc.co.uk > > I too sent them a feedback asking them whats up. I also left another long post and this time I noticed their web page said all post are read before being made public. Guess this is a quicker way to say Censorship in their country. John voyager@mo.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Date: 23 May 1998 18:53:47 -0500 >I too sent them a feedback asking them whats up. I also left another >long post and this time I noticed their web page said all post are >read before being made public. Guess this is a quicker way to say >Censorship in their country. Well, at least it's only a two day weekend in the UK. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: Help needed for MO CCW! Date: 23 May 1998 19:00:47 -0500 Wanna help Missouri get the CCW referendum passed? http://www.wmsa.net/ > Might I suggest. For those out there who have decided not to support >the NRA. For every beg letter you recieve from the NRA send a donation >to one of these grass roots organization to fight the fight. Donate AT >LEAST two days a month to local political activities in the field. That's >16 hrs a month. Like walk for a candidate or address issues at your local >city/county meetings. Sitting at home or office reading this list don't >count. Later this morning I will be manning a table at the gun show to >pitch for Mike Carona for Sheriff. IMNSHO this is the most important >race in our county for the pro-gun effort. We need to elect pro gun >people at the local level as they are the federal candidates of the >future. We need to see to it our congress critters get reelected and the >opponents get tough sledding. We need to make the anti gunners , "feel >the heat". Later, after the June primary I will be working for Boxers >opponent Daryl Issa. To Quote one of Daryl's more quotable quotes, >"the Second Amendment is not about keeping arms, It's about BEARING >arm's. It's not about hiding guns under your bed." > >Roger Wilson >Guns Save Lives >rwilson45@juno.com > > >_____________________________________________________________________ >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] > > >-- > (Roger K Wilson) > AirPower Information Services BBS * 610-259-2193 > http://www.airpower.com Telnet://airpower.dyn.ml.org > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Critical Infrastructure: President's Naval Academy Address (fwd) Date: 23 May 1998 16:27:29 PST On May 23, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] President Clinton's May 22 address to the U.S. Naval Academy warned against our vulnerability to attacks on our infrastructure. What is at risk? He listed them: "our critical infrastructures --our power systems, water supplies, police, fire, and medical services, air traffic control, financial services, telephone systems, and computer networks." In short, everything that is presently threatened by the Millennium Bug. These attacks are referred to as "cyber." They are almost always discussed in terms of deliberate threats. They are planned attacks. What is rarely discussed is the reality of y2k and its effects on all computer-interlinked systems. The same kinds of failures that are listed in discussions of cyber warfare will be the effects of the millennium bug. The same kinds of military strategies for one will be applied to the other. The threat is explained as military in nature. The response is also seen as military. The meaning should be clear: a military response to a civil breakdown is martial law. The voters are being prepared to accept martial law, no later than January, 2000. The government's goal is to create a new national order: the ever popular "business-government partnership." President Clinton announced his variation: "Because so many key components of our society are operated by the private sector, we must create a genuine public-private partnership to protect America in the 21st century." There can be no partnership between business and civil government. The relationship is always hierarchical. The State has the legitimate power of violence; the State is on top. That is why we need business-government suspicion, not a partnership. Every reason is used to push private citizens into a subordinate alliance with the State. The Year 2000 will be used to justify this move, but it will ultimately destroy it. The welfare/warfare State has less than two years to go. A warfare State may replace it in the cities until it runs out of resources, but the welfare State is doomed. The two missing digits are like two missing eyes. * * * * * * * * As we approach the 21st century, our foes have extended the fields of battle -- from physical space to cyberspace; from the world's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies. Rather than invading our beaches or launching bombers, these adversaries may attempt cyberattacks against our critical military systems and our economic base. Or they may deploy compact and relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction -- not just nuclear, but also chemical or biological, to use disease as a weapon of war. Sometimes the terrorists and criminals act alone. But increasingly, they are interconnected, and sometimes supported by hostile countries. If our children are to grow up safe and free, we must approach these new 21st century threats with the same rigor and determination we applied to the toughest security challenges of this century. We are taking strong steps against these threats today. We've improved antiterrorism cooperation with other countries; tightened security for our troops, our diplomats, our air travelers; strengthened sanctions on nations that support terrorists; given our law enforcement agencies new tools. We broke up terrorist rings before they could attack New York's Holland Tunnel, the United Nations, and our airlines. We have captured and brought to justice many of the offenders. But we must do more. Last week, I announced America's first comprehensive strategy to control international crime and bring criminals, terrorists and money launderers to justice. Today, I come before you to announce three new initiatives -- the first broadly directed at combatting terrorism; the other two addressing two potential threats from terrorists and hostile nations, attacks on our computer networks and other critical systems upon which our society depends, and attacks using biological weapons. On all of these efforts, we will need the help of the Navy and the Marines. Your service will be critical in combatting these new challenges. To make these three initiatives work we must have the concerted efforts of a whole range of federal agencies -- from the Armed Forces to law enforcement to intelligence to public health. I am appointing a National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism, to bring the full force of all our resources to bear swiftly and effectively. First, we will use our new integrated approach to intensify the fight against all forms of terrorism -- to capture terrorists, no matter where they hide; to work with other nations to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries overseas; to respond rapidly and effectively to protect Americans from terrorism at home and abroad. Second, we will launch a comprehensive plan to detect, deter, and defend against attacks on our critical infrastructures --our power systems, water supplies, police, fire, and medical services, air traffic control, financial services, telephone systems, and computer networks. Just 15 years ago, these infrastructures -- some within government, some in the private sector -- were separate and distinct. Now, they are linked together over vast computer-electronic networks, greatly increasing our productivity, but also making us much more vulnerable to disruption. Three days ago, we saw the enormous impact of a single failed electronic link when a satellite malfunction disabled pagers, ATMs, credit card systems, and TV and radio networks all around the world. Beyond such accidents, intentional attacks against our critical systems already are underway. Hackers break into government and business computers. They can raid banks, run up credit card charges, extort money by threats to unleash computer viruses. If we fail to take strong action, then terrorists, criminals and hostile regimes could invade and paralyze these vital systems, disrupting commerce, threatening health, weakening our capacity to function in a crisis. In response to these concerns, I established a commission chaired by Retired General Tom Marsh, to assist the vulnerability of our critical infrastructures. They returned with a pointed conclusion: our vulnerability, particularly to cyberattacks, is real and growing. And they made important recommendations that we will now implement to put us ahead of the danger curve. We have the best trained, best equipped best prepared Armed Forces in history. But, as ever, we must be ready to fight the next war, not the last one. And our military, as strong as it is, cannot meet these challenges alone. Because so many key components of our society are operated by the private sector, we must create a genuine public-private partnership to protect America in the 21st century. Together, we can find and reduce the vulnerabilities to attack in all critical sectors, develop warning systems including a national center to alert us to attacks, increase our cooperation with friendly nations, and create the means to minimize damage and rapidly recover in the event attacks occur. We can -- and we must -- make these critical systems more secure, so that we can be more secure. Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19980522-4986.html [------------------------- 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: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) Date: 23 May 1998 16:32:42 PST On May 23, Boyd Kneeland wrote: >What bank was the check drawn on?? > >I think it's a hard case in todays world to argue that presenting checks on >a third bank should be easy (IMHO this is wrong, Im not excusing it just >stating reality as seen through my bottle bottom glasses). But as I >understand it (and it's unclear now that I reread it) this was a check >written on the bank to wich it was presented. IE payor handed our guy a >first union check. Is that true? If not then he should have been talking to >the payor rather then trying to enforce the payors contract with a 3rd >member bank of the check clearing system. > >If on the other hand, this was a first union check written by a first union >customer to a non first union recipient (our guy) then the whole thing is >even scarier. That's the way I read it. > If refusing to be thumb printed is probable cause for >detention, then I know what me and my lawyer are doing teusday afternoon. >Can anyone confirm this post? Anyone know what the fellow was -charged- >with that allowed him to be cuffed? What city in SC was this branch in? (We >need phone numbers here for the branch, the PD and the district attorney.) >It would be great if something important like this came with more data. > >Boyd (I do not argue contract law with bank tellers) Kneeland I'll try and check up on that, but try to write the people listed as sources in the post, it might be quicker..... -- ***** 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: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Dancing in the Blood of the Victims Date: 23 May 1998 17:04:10 -0700 At 05:46 PM 5/23/98 +0500, you wrote: >> Brad, I hope you send your post in it's entirety to BBC's discussion page >> (see bills post about the poll). Boyd > >Thanks Boyd, but my experience (and others, now) with that site is >that it won't accept any new pro-gun postings. What has been your >experience with it? > >I composed a statement on it last night and when I submitted it, >there was a network error and my post was gone. Others who have >successfully gotten past that point are still waiting to see their >posts on the site. > >I think it's a rigged deal. I have to agree; my post there hasn't appeared in 3 hours. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "DeForest has said ... that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public has been persuaded to buy stock in his company." U.S. District Attorney, during trial of vacuum tube inventor Lee DeForest !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Support this! (fwd) Date: 23 May 1998 17:46:26 PST On May 23, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Congressional Record - May 20, 1998 Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) SUPPORT H.R. 692 TO APPOINT INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING (House of Representatives - May 20, 1998) [Page: H 3492] (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. "Mr. Speaker, Federal agents killed his dog, they killed his 14-year-old son, and they killed his wife. Federal agents said they did not like his politics. Randy Weaver is a white separatist. My colleagues do not like his politics, and I do not like Weaver's politics either, but that is no reason for the government to gun down his family. Let me tell my colleagues something. This does not sound like the FBI of Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. This sounds like the KGB of Joseph Stalin. To make matters worse, a Federal judge dropped all charges against the FBI agent who shot Vicky Weaver right between the eyes while clutching her infant son. [Daughter. -E.W.] Shame, my colleagues. Congress, the Justice Department investigates themselves and then they cover their assets every time. We are a bunch of fools. It is time to put our government in order. Support H.R. 692 and put an independent counsel on these types of cases. Shame, Congress. No American family should be gunned down." [------------------------- 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: [AR15-L] Re: Let Teachers CCW (fwd) Date: 24 May 1998 20:00:22 PST On May 25, Real Name: wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi, http://www.mclaughlin.com/ The Mclaughlin Group, PBS program . Go vote on whether China-Gate is Treason . Voting is running 60%-80% Treason, by age group . Spread this URL far, and wide . Stay Stronger, Ken. [------------------------- 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: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting] (fwd) Date: 25 May 1998 13:40:21 PST On May 25, Ron Marsh wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Received: from bruce26.thnet.com (bruce26.thnet.com [206.98.115.126]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA22230; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:20:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199805251420.JAA22230@vader.thnet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is Organization: The Vigo Examiner Reply-to: Distribution@Vigo-Examiner.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting by MAUREEN SIELAFF Maureen@Vigo-Examiner.com The Vigo Examiner SPRINGFIELD, OREGON - Before going on a wild shooting spree at his Springfield Oregon high school that left 2 dead and 22 injured, Kip Kinkel had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription drug called Prozac. This particular drug has factored in almost all wild shooting sprees which have taken place in the last ten years. Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this drug is alleged to induce in patients. Prozac is commonly given to youth as a treatment for depression. In the book "Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs," by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts. The following information is taken from form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by Dista Products Company, a division of Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana. It was last revised on June 12, 1997, and can be found in each package of Prozac. Anxiety and Insomnia: In clinical trials for the depressed, held in the U.S., 12% to 16% of those tested reported increased anxiety, nervousness, or insomnia. In similar trials for those diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorders insomnia was reported in 28% of the patients, and anxiety was reported in 14%. Altered Appetite and Weight: In controlled U.S. clinics 11% of patients treated with Prozac reported an anorexic appetite. However, only rarely have patients discontinued treatment with Prozac because of this symptom. Those diagnosed with OCD, again, came in at a higher rate of 17%. Other symptoms: (considered to be frequent by Dista) chills, hemorrhage and hypertension of the cardiovascular system, nausea and vomiting, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability, sleep disorder, ear pain, taste perversion, and tininitus. The outcome classification (%) on the Clinical Global Impression improvement scale based on two studies showed that of those who took 40mg of Prozac 0% were reported to be no worse, 33% showed no change, 28% were minimally improved, 27% much improved, and 12% very much improved. Meaning that of those tested only 39% showed any reasonable improvement from taking this drug. Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to this sudden increase in homicidal shootings, these events do not appear to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership. But when the percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is compared to the percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very disturbing pattern emerges. Though Prozac does indeed help many people suffering from depression, it appears that it does indeed also drive many into homicidal rages. When Kip Kinkel's home was investigated several bombs that he had constructed were discovered. With a ban on bombs already in place, he nevertheless managed to have several in his possession that he might well have taken to school instead of guns. So the question arises, if guns had been banned like bombs, would the danger have been averted? The unmistakable answer is that it would not. And with the shootings correlating far more closely with the psychiatric drug Prozac, why is the public put in such great danger by its widespread use, while efforts are directed instead toward something that shows no correlation? On Tuesday, May 19th, Kip Kinkel's father took away his rifle, after finding that Kip was taking the gun out of the house on unsupervised ventures into the woods. The next day, Wednesday, May 20th, 15 year old Kip Kinkel showed up at Thurston High School with a dangerous attitude and a newly purchased stolen gun that he had gotten from another student. A security guard caught wind of the arrangement and the two boys were arrested, booked, and then released to their parents. On Thursday, May 21st, Kip Kinkel walked out of his home after shooting his parents with the rifle his dad had taken away from him and proceeded to the high school. He walked into the cafeteria and fired off 51 rounds of ammunition which resulted in the deaths of two of the students and injuries of various degrees to 22 other students ages 14 through 18. The onslaught ended when one of the wounded students, a 17 year old wrestler, tackled Kip, and other students piled on top of Kip to help restrain him. Those who have known Kip Kinkel present very differing portrayals of his life and his demeanor on an everyday basis. Gun control advocates are outraged that "a gun" has again taken the lives of innocent citizens. Others are saying that Kip Kinkel is just an average kid who went about on a daily basis doing stunts that average kids do. Still other's paint a depressing picture of a child and a family in crisis and at the end of their ropes, and of a young boy who for years had displayed his unhappiness, albeit apparently reasonless, by doing acts which should have been considered highly questionable and certainly not normal. A close family friend told reporters that Bill Kinkel had begun confiding in him about four years ago about severe behavioral problems with his son. The friend stated that the boy's parent sought counseling and attempted to maintain a very structured home life. "As parents, they just kept trying." The day before the shooting spree Mr. Kinkel contacted the Oregon National Guard to inquire about having his son enrolled in the Guard's Youth Challenge Program. An official with the Guard stated that Mr. Kinkel seemed at the end of his rope, and that he wanted to get his son "mainstreamed back into school." The Guard YCP takes in children who "are on the razor's edge, ready to fall on the dark side." Obviously Kip Kinkel was already over the edge. His attitude regarding life and his subsequent behavior was irrationally ignored by not only his closest friends but also the teachers, the school nurse, school management, and police officials. Most had the attitude that he was just a kid, that no one needed to be concerned. But how could this be? All were well aware of the boys bizarre behavioral patterns. Although they might say what a nice kid they thought he was, most can follow up with one story or another of comments and actions that definitely describe a boy that is anything but "average". Apparently it is easier to drug our youth, to fill their bodies with drugs that many times have worse side effects on their minds and spirits than the problems they have. You name the attitude and there is a drug to supposedly help or cure it. It may be time to take the War On Drugs to where it can really be effective; getting these society cop-out drugs out of our children's lives. It may be time we rise and help our children through productive activities and quit drugging them senseless. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner. You will recieve one to three of our top stories or editorials each day. Send your subscription request, and all other communication to Editor@Vigo-Examiner.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: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting] Date: 25 May 1998 15:06:53 -0700 Of course, one other thing all Prozac users have in common is cyclical depression. While I'm not going to leap into the Prozac argument on the side opposite the Scientologists, I am willing to state that it appears logical to me that as a generalization, clinically depressed people might on the whole have some slightly greater tendency to extreme expressions of frustration then the population as a whole. That or it's the freemasons ; ) Whatever. B - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Date: 25 May 1998 22:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Can anyone supply any information on the other shootings where Prozac was involved? At 01:40 PM 5/25/98 PST, you wrote: >On May 25, Ron Marsh wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >Received: from bruce26.thnet.com (bruce26.thnet.com [206.98.115.126]) by vader.thnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA22230; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:20:59 -0500 (EST) >Message-Id: <199805251420.JAA22230@vader.thnet.com> >Comments: Authenticated sender is >From: "Distribution" >Organization: The Vigo Examiner >To: Distribution >Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:14:47 +0000 >Subject: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting >Reply-to: Distribution@Vigo-Examiner.com >Priority: normal >X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) > > Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting > >by MAUREEN SIELAFF >Maureen@Vigo-Examiner.com >The Vigo Examiner > >SPRINGFIELD, OREGON - Before going on a wild shooting spree at his >Springfield Oregon high school that left 2 dead and 22 injured, Kip Kinkel >had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription drug >called Prozac. This particular drug has factored in almost all wild >shooting sprees which have taken place in the last ten years. Eli Lilly of >Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this >drug is alleged to induce in patients. > Prozac is commonly given to youth as a treatment for depression. In >the book "Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs," by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., >Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; >hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, >antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts. > The following information is taken from form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by >Dista Products Company, a division of Eli Lilly and Company of >Indianapolis, Indiana. It was last revised on June 12, 1997, and can be >found in each package of Prozac. > Anxiety and Insomnia: In clinical trials for the depressed, held in >the U.S., 12% to 16% of those tested reported increased anxiety, >nervousness, or insomnia. In similar trials for those diagnosed with >obsessive-compulsive disorders insomnia was reported in 28% of the >patients, and anxiety was reported in 14%. > Altered Appetite and Weight: In controlled U.S. clinics 11% of >patients treated with Prozac reported an anorexic appetite. However, only >rarely have patients discontinued treatment with Prozac because of this >symptom. Those diagnosed with OCD, again, came in at a higher rate of 17%. > Other symptoms: (considered to be frequent by Dista) chills, >hemorrhage and hypertension of the cardiovascular system, nausea and >vomiting, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability, sleep >disorder, ear pain, taste perversion, and tininitus. > The outcome classification (%) on the Clinical Global Impression >improvement scale based on two studies showed that of those who took 40mg >of Prozac 0% were reported to be no worse, 33% showed no change, 28% were >minimally improved, 27% much improved, and 12% very much improved. Meaning >that of those tested only 39% showed any reasonable improvement from taking >this drug. > Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to >this sudden increase in homicidal shootings, these events do not appear to >correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership. But when the >percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is compared to the >percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very disturbing pattern >emerges. Though Prozac does indeed help many people suffering from >depression, it appears that it does indeed also drive many into homicidal >rages. > When Kip Kinkel's home was investigated several bombs that he had >constructed were discovered. With a ban on bombs already in place, he >nevertheless managed to have several in his possession that he might well >have taken to school instead of guns. So the question arises, if guns had >been banned like bombs, would the danger have been averted? The >unmistakable answer is that it would not. And with the shootings >correlating far more closely with the psychiatric drug Prozac, why is the >public put in such great danger by its widespread use, while efforts are >directed instead toward something that shows no correlation? > On Tuesday, May 19th, Kip Kinkel's father took away his rifle, after >finding that Kip was taking the gun out of the house on unsupervised >ventures into the woods. The next day, Wednesday, May 20th, 15 year old Kip >Kinkel showed up at Thurston High School with a dangerous attitude and a >newly purchased stolen gun that he had gotten from another student. A >security guard caught wind of the arrangement and the two boys were >arrested, booked, and then released to their parents. > On Thursday, May 21st, Kip Kinkel walked out of his home after >shooting his parents with the rifle his dad had taken away from him and >proceeded to the high school. He walked into the cafeteria and fired off 51 >rounds of ammunition which resulted in the deaths of two of the students >and injuries of various degrees to 22 other students ages 14 through 18. >The onslaught ended when one of the wounded students, a 17 year old >wrestler, tackled Kip, and other students piled on top of Kip to help >restrain him. > Those who have known Kip Kinkel present very differing portrayals of >his life and his demeanor on an everyday basis. Gun control advocates are >outraged that "a gun" has again taken the lives of innocent citizens. >Others are saying that Kip Kinkel is just an average kid who went about on >a daily basis doing stunts that average kids do. Still other's paint a >depressing picture of a child and a family in crisis and at the end of >their ropes, and of a young boy who for years had displayed his >unhappiness, albeit apparently reasonless, by doing acts which should have >been considered highly questionable and certainly not normal. > A close family friend told reporters that Bill Kinkel had begun >confiding in him about four years ago about severe behavioral problems with >his son. The friend stated that the boy's parent sought counseling and >attempted to maintain a very structured home life. "As parents, they just >kept trying." > The day before the shooting spree Mr. Kinkel contacted the Oregon >National Guard to inquire about having his son enrolled in the Guard's >Youth Challenge Program. An official with the Guard stated that Mr. Kinkel >seemed at the end of his rope, and that he wanted to get his son >"mainstreamed back into school." The Guard YCP takes in children who "are >on the razor's edge, ready to fall on the dark side." Obviously Kip Kinkel >was already over the edge. > His attitude regarding life and his subsequent behavior was >irrationally ignored by not only his closest friends but also the teachers, >the school nurse, school management, and police officials. Most had the >attitude that he was just a kid, that no one needed to be concerned. But >how could this be? > All were well aware of the boys bizarre behavioral patterns. Although >they might say what a nice kid they thought he was, most can follow up with >one story or another of comments and actions that definitely describe a boy >that is anything but "average". > Apparently it is easier to drug our youth, to fill their bodies with >drugs that many times have worse side effects on their minds and spirits >than the problems they have. You name the attitude and there is a drug to >supposedly help or cure it. > It may be time to take the War On Drugs to where it can really be >effective; getting these society cop-out drugs out of our children's lives. >It may be time we rise and help our children through productive activities >and quit drugging them senseless. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com >Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner. >You will recieve one to three of our top stories or editorials >each day. Send your subscription request, and all other >communication to Editor@Vigo-Examiner.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 >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > >- > > S. "Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." -- Peter W. Huber - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Date: 26 May 1998 01:01:38 -0700 At 03:06 PM 5/25/98 -0700, Boyd Kneeland wrote: >Of course, one other thing all Prozac users have in common is cyclical >depression. While I'm not going to leap into the Prozac argument on the >side opposite the Scientologists, I am willing to state that it appears >logical to me that as a generalization, clinically depressed people might >on the whole have some slightly greater tendency to extreme expressions of >frustration then the population as a whole. That or it's the freemasons ; ) > Whatever. B I went through a bout of mild depression some years back, and spent a few months on each of the anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac and Elevil. None worked worth a damn for me, and I eventually "bounced back" without chemical help. But I did spend quite a bit of time studying the "disease", and one thing that I found is this: People in severe depression feel helpless. They are incapable of action, rational or otherwise. Depressed people don't even have the energy to commit suicide. Frankly, it isn't until they're on their way back up that they have the energy to kill themselves, or to "go postal". I always figured that the homicidal rage and suicidal tendencies of Prozac patients merely meant that it was working, that the patients were on their way back up instead of bottomed out. But the beginning of recovery from depression is THE MOST DANGEROUS TIME, and I'm not sure that even the shrinks properly understand this. Which isn't to say that Prozac didn't play a role in this or other shootings. But maybe the message is that when kids are on Prozac or other antidepressants, that we parents/teachers/friends need to watch them like hawks for the warning signs. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) Registered Libertarian --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ Bureau of Justice statistics report that every day, 14 people will be murdered, 48 women raped, and 570 people robbed by criminals free on parole and probation. Keeping criminals in jail DOES reduce crime! Proud Member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: on National Socialism.... and America (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 01:34:31 PST On May 26, EdgarSuter wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- TWENTIETH CENTURY BODY COUNT Governments: 360,000,000 (and counting) Ted Kennedy's driving: 1 Militias: 0 The Nazi Mind-Set in America from The Future of Freedom Foundation August/September, 1994, by Jacob G. Hornberger Before the end of World War II, in 1944, Friedrich A. Hayek, who was later to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, startled the Western world with a book entitled "The Road to Serfdom". Hayek argued that despite the war against Nazi Germany, the economic philosophy of the Nazis and communists was becoming the guiding light for American and British policymakers. In a later forward to the book, Hayek wrote: "But after the war broke out I felt that this widespread misunderstanding of the political systems of our enemies, and soon also of our new ally, Russia, constituted a serious danger which had to be met by a more systematic effort. Also, it was already fairly obvious that England herself was likely to experiment after the war with the same kind of policies which I was convinced had contributed so much to destroy liberty elsewhere... Opinion moves fast in the United States, and even now it is difficult to remember how comparatively a short time it was before "The Road to Serfdom" appeared that the most extreme kind of economic planning had been seriously advocated and the model of Russia held up for imitation by men who were soon to play an important role in public affairs...Be it enough to mention that in 1934 the newly established National Planning Board devoted a good deal of attention to the example of planning provided by these four countries: Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan." As the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II approaches, Americans must ask themselves a troubling question: Did Hayek's concerns become reality - have Americans, in fact, traveled the road to serfdom the past fifty years? Or, to put it another way, did the Nazis lost the military battles but win the war for the hearts and minds of the American people? Consider, for example, the Nazi economic system. Who can argue that the American people do not believe in and support most of its tenets? For example, how many Americans today do not unequivocally support the following planks of the Nationalist (Nazi) Party of Germany, adopted in Munich on February 24, 1920: "We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living." "The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: ...an end to the power of the financial interests." "We demand profit sharing in big business." "We demand a broad extension of care for the aged." "We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments." "In order to make possible every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents..." "The government must undertake the improvement of public health - by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor...by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth." "[We] combat the...materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before The Individual Good." I repeat: How many Americans today do not unequivocally support most, if not all, of these Nazi economic and political principles? And if there is any doubt whether the Nazi economic philosophy did, in fact, win the hearts and minds of the American people, consider the following description of the Nazi economic system by Leonard Peikoff in his book "The Ominous Parallels:" "Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary: what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property - so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property." What American objects to these principles of the Nazi economic system? Don't most Americans favor the planned economy, the regulated economy, the controlled economy? Don't most Americans favor the type of economic controls, and the right of government to institute such controls, that characterized the Nazi society: wage and price controls, high taxes, government-business partnerships, licensing, permits, and a myriad other economic regulations? The truth is that Hayek's warning was ignored. Having defeated the Nazis in battle, Americans became ardent supporters and advocates of Nazi economic policies. Why? Part of the answer lies in another feature that was central to the Nazi way of life: public schooling. "Oh, no! You have gone too far this time," the average American will exclaim. "Public schooling is a distinctively American institution - as American as apple pie and free enterprise." The truth? As Sheldon Richman documents so well in his book, "Separating School & State," twentieth-century Americans adopted the idea of a state schooling system in the latter part of the nineteenth century from - you guessed it - Prussia! And as Mr. Richman points out, public schooling has proven as successful in the United States as it did in Germany. Why? Because it has succeeded in its goal of producing a nation of "good little citizens" - people who pay their taxes on time, follow the rules, obey orders, condemn and turn in the rule-breakers, and see themselves as essential cogs in the national wheel. Consider the words of Richard Ebeling, in his introduction to "Separating School & State:" "In the hands of the state, compulsory public education becomes a tool for political control and manipulation - a prime instrument for the thought police of society. And precisely because very child passes through the same indoctrination process - learning the same "official history," the same "civic virtues," the same lessons of obedience and loyalty to the state - it becomes extremely difficult for the independent soul to free himself from the straight jacket of the ideology and values the political authorities wish to imprint upon the population under its jurisdiction. For the communists, it was the class struggle and obedience to the Party and Comrade Stalin; for the fascists, it was worship of the nation-state and obedience to the Duce; for the Nazis, it was race purity and obedience to the Fuhrer. The content has varied, but the form has remained the same. Through the institution of compulsory state education, the child is to be molded like wax into the shape desired by the state and its educational elite. We should not believe that because ours is a freer, more democratic society, the same imprinting procedure has not occurred even here, in America. Every generation of school-age children has imprinted upon it a politically correct ideology concerning America's past and the sanctity of the role of the state in society. Practically every child in the public school system learns that the "robber barons" of the 19th century exploited the common working man; that unregulated capitalism needed to be harnessed by enlightened government regulation beginning in the Progressive era at the turn of the century; that wild Wall Street speculation was a primary cause of the Great Depression; that only Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal saved America from catastrophe; and that American intervention in foreign wars has been necessary and inevitable, with the United States government required to be a global leader and an occasional world policeman." This brings us to the heart of the problem - the core of the Nazi mind-set: that the interests of the individual must be subordinated to the interests of the nation. This is the principle that controls the minds of the American people, just as it controlled the minds of the German people sixty years ago. Each person is viewed as a bee in a hive; his primary role in life is to serve the hive and the ruler of the hive, and to be sacrificed when the hive and its rulers consider it necessary. This is why Americans of our time, unlike their ancestors, favor such things as income taxation, Social Security, socialized medicine, and drug laws; they believe, as did Germans in the 1930s, that their bodies, lives, income, and property, in the final analysis, are subordinate to the interests of the nation. As your read the following words of Adolf Hitler, ask yourself which American politician, which American bureaucrat, which American schoolteacher, which American citizen would disagree with the principles to which Hitler subscribed: "It is thus necessary that the individual shall finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of this nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual...is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Even though the average American enthusiastically supports the Nazi economic philosophy, he recoils at having his beliefs labeled as "Nazi." Why" Because, he argues, the Nazi government, unlike the U.S. government, killed six million people in concentration camps, and this mass murder of millions of people, rather than economic philosophy, captures the true essence of the Nazi label. What Americans fail (or refuse) to recognize is that the concentration camps were simply the logical extension of the Nazi mind-set! It does not matter whether there were six million killed - or six hundred - or six - or even one. The evil - the terrible, black evil - is the belief that a government should have the power to sacrifice even one individual for the good of the nation. Once this basic philosophical premise and political power are conceded, innocent people, beginning with a few and inevitably ending in multitudes, will be killed, because "the good of the nation" always ends up requiring it. Political killings of innocent people could never happen in America, our fellow citizens tell us. America is a democracy. But so was Nazi Germany. Hitler was popularly elected, and his economic policies were widely favored and acclaimed (by Germans and Americans). But there is another basic problem with that assertion: it is happening here in America. And like the German people of the 1930s, Americans either refuse to see it happening, or they rationalize what is happening so that they do not have to deal with it. Now, it is true that the killings do not number in the millions - but they certainly do number, so far, in the thousands. Let's take some examples. The Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas: U.S. Army tanks and gas were used against peaceful, religious, well-armed people. More than eighty Americans, including children were gassed and burned. And is there any remorse - any regret - any independent governmental investigation into this massacre? Not on your life. The government officials, just like their Nazi counterparts, think they did "the right thing" in killing our fellow citizens. And for those of you who look to the judiciary for protection, you had better look elsewhere: the federal judge who presided over the trial of the Waco survivors declared that he would not permit the government to be "put on trial," and then slapped forty-year sentences on the Branch Davidian survivors. Or take Randy Weaver, his wife, and son, of Idaho. First, they were set up on an idiotic gun charge. (Weaver sold a shotgun that was a quarter of an inch too short, at the request of a U.S.. government agent.) Then, they sent Weaver a notice of a wrong trial date. When he failed to appear, they surrounded his house and attacked. A government sniper shot his unarmed wife in the head with a bullet as she was holding her baby. And they shot Weaver's son in the back. Then, at Weaver's trial, they fabricated evidence and committed perjury. Fortunately, Weaver was acquitted. But have any criminal charges been brought against the government agents for the murder of Weaver's wife and son? Did the federal judge in the case even cite the agents for contempt for their reprehensible conduct? Well, did the Nazi government ever bring charges against the SS? Did Nazi judges ever punish Nazi officials for killing Jews? Government officials killed Donald Scott, a millionaire rancher in California. They claimed that they needed to barge into his house in the middle of the night to look for marijuana. And when Scott obeyed their order to lay down the gun he had picked up in his fear of the intruders, they shot him dead. And it later turned out that they hoped to find marijuana so that they could confiscate his land and convert it to a national park. But Americans either look the other way, the way the Germans did, or they rationalize what is happening by saying, "The war on drugs has gotta be won." And it is not just killings. Just as the Nazis did, they are confiscating people's money, land, boats, cars - anything they can get their hands on. No longer do they need to depend only on taxes for their revenues - they just go grab the money and property directly and keep it, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the victims. And, of course, it's all rationalized because "the war on drugs has gotta be won." And it's not just confiscation. It is also terror - the terror of the Internal Revenue Service agents barging into people's homes, "visiting" them at work, and levying liens on bank accounts and real estate without notice, hearing, or other semblance of due process. Yes, it's true - we are not dealing with the killings and mass confiscations and infliction of terror on millions of people. It is happening only to several thousands. But that's today. What happens in a crisis? Suppose an American ruler decided he is not going to get "pushed around" by the ruler of North Korea, Haiti, Panama, Iraq, or Japan? What happens if a war is not over in a few weeks, but instead drags out into months, even years, with higher taxes, more controls, and...conscription? What happens if Americans, who are already being taxed 50 percent of their incomes, now find taxes at 70 or 80 percent? What happens if there is a massive tax strike in which millions refuse to pay their taxes? What happens if hundreds of thousands of American students refuse to be drafted by a president who refused to be drafted? Will the government meekly surrender? Will it simply agree to lose "international face"? Not on your life. The Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the army will simply turn their massive powers against the leaders of the tax revolt and as many of its followers as possible. And they will do whatever is necessary to teach those "draft-dodging cowards" a lesson. The American people will learn what the German people learned: that the omnipotent state that loves the poor and the needy will remove its velvet glove and use its iron fist to smash those who interfere with the "good of the nation." Let's look at some more examples of the Nazi mind-set in America - this time in the Department of the Army. The army conducted nuclear radiation experiments on American soldiers. Why? Because the good of the nation required it. The army conducted drug experiments on American citizens. Why? Because the good of the nation required it. The army conducted disease experiments on the American people. Why? Because the good the nation required it. The army herded innocent Americans of Japanese descent into American concentration camps. Why? Because the good of the nation required it. The army entered into joint ventures with German Nazis at the end of World War II. Why? Because the good of the nation required it. In other words, in the past, U.S. government officials have engaged in evil. Nazi-like conduct for the "good of the nation." Would they do so again? You can bet your life they would, if the "good of the nation required it", and even it if entailed the violation of every single restriction on government power set forth in the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing inevitable in all this. Through the power of ideas, we can reverse the trend. If ideas did not matter, governments would not try to suppress ideas. Ideas do matter; they do have consequences; they do influence people into acting, into changing, into reversing course. But the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment - the right to speak, to write, to disseminate ideas - are not sufficient. The ultimate safeguard against the ultimate tyranny lies instead with the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. If this Amendment is destroyed or severely constricted, the rest of the Constitution becomes worthless, because in a crisis in which their power base is threatened, and in which there are no means of forcible resistance, government officials will squash the things they view as "technicalities" - free speech, habeas corpus, trial by jury, and the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Combine a crisis with a disarmed, discontented citizenry, and the concentration camp for hundreds of thousands becomes a real possibility. But when the citizenry, together with various patriotic sheriffs, police, and members of the armed forces, have the means to inflict severe casualties on their potential oppressors, tyrants think twice before they try to oppress their own citizens too heavily. That is why every single effort to restrict or control or manage the ownership of guns must be resisted. The ultimate barrier to the ultimate tyranny lies not with the ballot box. It lies not with the soapbox. It lies not with the jury box. The ultimate barrier to the tyranny of one's own government lies with the cartridge box. Contrary to everything our rulers tell us, and everything that our schoolteachers are teaching the children of this nation, the biggest threat to the lives and well-being of the American people lies not with some foreign government. The biggest threat to the American people lies with the United States government. And while gun ownership stands as a barrier to potential, Nazi-like behavior, the long-term solution is to dismantle, not reform, the iron fist of the welfare state and the controlled economy. This includes the end (not the reform) of the IRS, the DEA, the BATF, the SEC, the FDA, HUD, the departments of HHS, Labor, Agriculture, and Energy, and every other agency that takes money from some and gives it to others or interferes with peaceful behavior. It entails the repeal of all laws that permit such conduct. And it means the privatization of most of the bureaucrats who work for the U.S. government. But it also entails the end of potential oppressors, who, in the past, have shown no reluctance to engage in evil, malicious, illegal, Nazi-like conduct against American citizens, such as the CIA and the standing army. Would this mean that the U.S. government would not be permitted to act as the international Roman emperor? That is exactly what it should mean. But what about threats of invasion of the United States? Such threats are virtually nonexistent. But if every single citizen if free to arm himself to the teeth, any nation contemplating invasion would know that attacking the United States would be like swallowing a porcupine. What about a quick mobilization? There would be no reason why citizen-soldiers would not quickly mobilize in the event of an emergency. For example, suppose that the standing army is disbanded. The members of the 82nd Airborne Division would not simply disappear. They would become private, productive citizens, but ready in times of peril to answer the call. They could be, and probably would be more than willing to be, at any location in the country within 24 hours. Moreover, there would be a doubly positive effect in terms of economic prosperity. No longer would taxes have to be sucked out of the pockets of private citizens to support the armed forces. And the members of the armed forces, now privatized, would now be economically productive members of society. In his book "The Road to Serfdom," Friedrich Hayek warned Americans in 1944 that despite their military war against the Nazis, they were traveling the philosophical and economic road that the Nazis and the communists were traveling. Our grandparents and parents ignored Hayek's warning. Now, we are left with the consequences; a government of omnipotent size and power using its power to kill innocent, peaceful citizens and confiscate millions of dollars of property to feed its insatiable hunger for more power. Today, the number of victims is in the thousands. But at the end of this road lie the concentration camps for the multitudes. Can the tide be reversed? Can the omnipotent state be dismantled, rather than simply reformed? Yes. It will take a return to first principles - the principles on which this nation, not Germany, were founded: principles that hold that it is the individual, not the collective, that is supreme; that each individual has been endowed by his creator with inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any government, including the American government, becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government; and that no individual - his life, liberty, or property - shall ever be sacrificed for the good of the nation. As Ayn Rand put it thirty years ago in her essay, "The Fascist New Frontier": "If you wish to oppose [statism], you must challenge its basic premises. You must begin by realizing that there is no such thing as "the public interest" except as the sum of the interests of individual men. And the basic, common interest of all men - all rational men - is freedom. Freedom is the first requirement of "the public interest" - not what men do when they are free, but that they are free. All their achievements rest on that foundation - and cannot exist without it. The principles of a free, non-coercive social system are the only form of "the public interest." Such principles did and do exist. Try to project such a system. In today's cultural atmosphere, it might appear to you like a journey into the unknown. But - like Columbus - what you will discover is America." - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - "What is truly amazing is that the majority of our intellectual class has already embraced the basic tenets of fascism; and the common man is the only stumbling block to the imposition of tyranny. The common man has read the handwriting on the wall, and he is banding together in militias or otherwise to stand as one to fight that which would suppress American liberties." [------------------------- 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: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Date: 26 May 1998 01:35:27 PST On May 25, sabutigo@teleport.com wrote: >Can anyone supply any information on the other shootings where Prozac was >involved? Suggest you look at the following URL/addr first. A couple of studies were mentioned, too, but not referenced. Otherwise you allready have everything I got at the moment. If I come up with anything else, I'll post it. >>http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com >>Enjoy a free 90 day trial subscription to The Vigo Examiner. >>You will recieve one to three of our top stories or editorials >>each day. Send your subscription request, and all other >>communication to Editor@Vigo-Examiner.com. -- ***** 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: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting] Date: 26 May 1998 08:44:39 -0700 I want it to be perfectly clear to everyone that my message was intended neither to criticize people who suffer from depression (far from it!) or to comment in any way on the danger or efficacy of prozac. My simple 6 line message (for wich I've gotten about as much flaming as I am going to take, frankly) said I didnt' think the argument was a good tactical move in the fight for freedom. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, perhaps entering a controversial medical debate is the best hope for freedom. Please understand what I was trying to say though. Boyd (jeez one light hearted message...) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: MSNBC (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 15:45:47 PST It's a little early to say anything about the Media yet, but we can allways hope..... On May 26, RHill@MICKEY.GC.WHECN.EDU wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I've been home sick most of today, but I did manage to see some afternoon Issues Talk Program, or something like that on MSNBC at about 2:00 pm EST today. I was in a stupor, so forgive the sketchiness. But, on that talk show, about the Oregon Shooting, were four panelists--the official VP for Media Relations for HCI, (whatever her name was), the senior MSNBC Legal Analyst, and two other panelists. The VP for Media Relations (again, I forget her name amongst all the emergency trips to the bathroom) got consistently hammered by the other three panelists and the host for trying to make Oregon, and the other school shootings a gun control issue. None of the panelists were pro-gun by any means, but all three kept slapping that HCI rep down with statements such as "But even banning all guns won't fix anything. Even if you take guns away from angry, messed-up kids, you still have angry, messed-up kids who want to kill. They'll just use bombs, or baseball bats, or some other weapon." Looked like HCI's one-message Harpie was getting hammered pretty well. I managed to grin a bit in between the dry heaves. Roy Hill [------------------------- 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: MSNBC (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 15:45:47 PST It's a little early to say anything about the Media yet, but we can allways hope..... On May 26, RHill@MICKEY.GC.WHECN.EDU wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I've been home sick most of today, but I did manage to see some afternoon Issues Talk Program, or something like that on MSNBC at about 2:00 pm EST today. I was in a stupor, so forgive the sketchiness. But, on that talk show, about the Oregon Shooting, were four panelists--the official VP for Media Relations for HCI, (whatever her name was), the senior MSNBC Legal Analyst, and two other panelists. The VP for Media Relations (again, I forget her name amongst all the emergency trips to the bathroom) got consistently hammered by the other three panelists and the host for trying to make Oregon, and the other school shootings a gun control issue. None of the panelists were pro-gun by any means, but all three kept slapping that HCI rep down with statements such as "But even banning all guns won't fix anything. Even if you take guns away from angry, messed-up kids, you still have angry, messed-up kids who want to kill. They'll just use bombs, or baseball bats, or some other weapon." Looked like HCI's one-message Harpie was getting hammered pretty well. I managed to grin a bit in between the dry heaves. Roy Hill [------------------------- 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: Jack Perrine Subject: Sponsors of Citizen protection act Date: 26 May 1998 17:13:25 -0700 This bill has a novel concept: Let us make it illegal for Department of Justice employees to do to us some of the things for which they probably would jail us if they caught us doing the same to anyone. LET US GET ON BOARD AND HELP OURSELVES ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE! In a sense this is more important than immigration or campaign finance: DoJ misdeeds both directly harm many and indirectly spread fear among MANY others who fear suffering similar fates, and this bill addresses the issue. The other issues are important and need work, but we have no consensus yet as to what might actually help them. This bill was introduced March 5, 1998 by Reps. McDade and Murtha. On March 5 Rep. McDade also provided a long list of court cases illustrating the kinds of misdeeds being addressed by the bill. This turns up as "Extension of Remarks" and you can get Thomas to display it via the bill, via Congressional Record, or via what Rep. McDade has said. I have listed the 142 cosigners, as of May 22, at the end of this post, IF: Your Rep. is part of the one-third of the House that has cosigned - say thanks, and point out that HR 3396 should be pushed through the Committee on the Judiciary and made a "MUST PASS" bill. Your Rep. is part of the two-thirds of the House that have not yet cosigned - lean hard. I have also listed the committee members. If you recognize a name, lean on them. HR 3396 needs hearings to sort out whether there are problems to be fixed - either the whole committee should do this, or the committee should assign the task to a subcommittee. JUDICIARY Ratio 20/15 Republicans 1. Henry J. Hyde, IL, Chairman 2. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., WI 3. Bill McCollum, FL 4. George W. Gekas, PA 5. Howard Coble, NC 6. Lamar S. Smith, TX 7. Elton Gallegly, CA 8. Charles T. Canady, FL 9. Bob Inglis, SC 10. Bob Goodlatte, VA 11. Stephen E. Buyer, IN 12. Ed Bryant, TN 13. Steve Chabot, OH 14. Bob Barr, GA 15. William L. Jenkins, TN 16. Asa Hutchinson, AR 17. Edward A. Pease, IN 18. Chris Cannon, UT 19. James E. Rogan, CA 20. Lindsey O. Graham, SC Democrats 1. John Conyers, Jr., MI 2. Barney Frank, MA 3. Charles E. Schumer, NY 4. Howard L. Berman, CA 5. Rick Boucher, VA 6. Jerrold Nadler, NY 7. Robert C. Scott, VA 8. Melvin L. Watt, NC 9. Zoe Lofgren, CA 10. Sheila Jackson-Lee, TX 11. Maxine Waters, CA 12. Martin T. Meehan, MA 13. William D. Delahunt, MA 14. Robert Wexler, FL 15. Steven R. Rothman, NJ SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY COURTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIME IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS THE CONSTITUTION COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW H.R.3396 SPONSOR: Rep McDade (introduced 03/05/98) 142 COSPONSORS: Rep Murtha - 03/05/98 Rep King - 03/12/98 Rep English - 03/12/98 Rep Miller, D. - 03/12/98 Rep Parker - 03/12/98 Rep Hunter - 03/12/98 Rep Duncan - 03/12/98 Rep Schaefer - 03/12/98 Rep Traficant - 03/12/98 Rep Quinn - 03/12/98 Rep Saxton - 03/12/98 Rep Boehlert - 03/12/98 Rep Smith, R. - 03/12/98 Rep Lewis, Jerry - 03/12/98 Rep Hefner - 03/12/98 Rep Stokes - 03/24/98 Rep Weldon, C. - 03/24/98 Rep Goodling - 03/24/98 Rep Sisisky - 03/24/98 Rep Rohrabacher - 03/24/98 Rep Moakley - 03/24/98 Rep Horn - 03/24/98 Rep Bachus - 03/24/98 Rep Skeen - 03/24/98 Rep Ford - 03/24/98 Rep Baldacci - 03/24/98 Rep Mica - 03/26/98 Rep Cunningham - 03/26/98 Rep Pickett - 03/26/98 Rep Knollenberg - 03/26/98 Rep Clay - 03/27/98 Rep Callahan - 03/27/98 Rep LoBiondo - 03/27/98 Rep Bliley - 03/31/98 Rep Dreier - 03/31/98 Rep Young, D. - 03/31/98 Rep Klink - 03/31/98 Rep Fattah - 03/31/98 Rep Walsh - 03/31/98 Rep Rahall - 03/31/98 Rep Visclosky - 03/31/98 Rep Wamp - 03/31/98 Rep Spence - 03/31/98 Rep Calvert - 03/31/98 Rep Condit - 03/31/98 Rep Forbes - 03/31/98 Rep Hobson - 04/01/98 Rep Lazio - 04/01/98 Rep Frelinghuysen - 04/01/98 Rep Dickey - 04/01/98 Rep Cox - 04/21/98 Rep Dunn - 04/21/98 Rep Cook - 04/21/98 Rep McHale - 04/21/98 Rep Reyes - 04/21/98 Rep Rodriguez - 04/21/98 Rep Doolittle - 04/21/98 Rep Gallegly - 04/21/98 Rep Watts - 04/21/98 Rep McIntosh - 04/21/98 Rep Rush - 04/21/98 Rep Hinojosa - 04/21/98 Rep Thurman - 04/21/98 Rep Pombo - 04/21/98 Rep Northup - 04/21/98 Rep Holden - 04/21/98 Rep Mollohan - 04/21/98 Rep Doyle - 04/21/98 Rep Borski - 04/21/98 Rep Kanjorski - 04/21/98 Rep Meek - 04/21/98 Rep Jackson-Lee - 04/21/98 Rep Scott - 04/21/98 Rep Green - 04/21/98 Rep Clyburn - 04/21/98 Rep Redmond - 04/21/98 Rep Shaw - 04/23/98 Rep Goodlatte - 04/23/98 Rep Taylor, C. - 04/23/98 Rep Bilirakis - 04/28/98 Rep Torres - 04/28/98 Rep Collins, M. - 04/28/98 Rep Kelly - 04/28/98 Rep Davis, D. - 04/30/98 Rep Wicker - 04/30/98 Rep Packard - 04/30/98 Rep Bilbray - 04/30/98 Rep Dicks - 04/30/98 Rep Stump - 04/30/98 Rep Bonilla - 04/30/98 Rep Gilman - 04/30/98 Rep Pitts - 04/30/98 Rep LaHood - 04/30/98 Rep Lipinski - 04/30/98 Rep Coburn - 04/30/98 Rep Moran, James P. - 04/30/98 Rep Pastor - 05/06/98 Rep Stearns - 05/06/98 Rep Fowler - 05/06/98 Rep Ballenger - 05/06/98 Rep Regula - 05/06/98 Rep Solomon - 05/06/98 Rep Pryce - 05/06/98 Rep Chenoweth - 05/06/98 Rep Manzullo - 05/06/98 Rep Nussle - 05/06/98 Rep Fazio - 05/06/98 Rep Johnson, N. - 05/06/98 Rep Smith, C. - 05/06/98 Rep LaTourette - 05/06/98 Rep Nethercutt - 05/06/98 Rep Graham - 05/13/98 Rep Campbell, Tom - 05/13/98 Rep Mascara - 05/13/98 Rep Pelosi - 05/13/98 Rep Kaptur - 05/13/98 Rep DeLauro - 05/13/98 Rep Peterson, J. - 05/13/98 Rep Watkins - 05/13/98 Rep Ehlers - 05/13/98 Rep Buyer - 05/13/98 Rep Livingston - 05/13/98 Rep Jefferson - 05/13/98 Rep Scarborough - 05/13/98 Rep Goss - 05/13/98 Rep Young, C. - 05/14/98 Rep Foley - 05/14/98 Rep Wynn - 05/14/98 Rep Greenwood - 05/14/98 Rep Riley - 05/18/98 Rep Aderholt - 05/18/98 Rep Norwood - 05/20/98 Rep Istook - 05/20/98 Rep Hansen - 05/20/98 Rep Houghton - 05/20/98 Rep Hastings, D. - 05/20/98 Rep DeLay - 05/20/98 Rep Hilliard - 05/21/98 Rep Tauzin - 05/21/98 Rep Kingston - 05/21/98 Rep Cummings - 05/22/98 Rep Fawell - 05/22/98 Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: Longer Discussion of Citizen Protection act Date: 26 May 1998 17:05:15 -0700 INTRODUCTION OF CITIZENS PROTECTION ACT -- HON. JOSEPH M. MCDADE (Extension of Remarks - March 05, 1998) [Page: E301] --- HON. JOSEPH M. MCDADE in the House of Representatives THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998 ? Mr. McDade. Mr. Speaker, I introduced bipartisan legislation this morning, along with my colleague, Jack Murtha, that will safeguard the citizens of this nation from unfair, abusive and unethical conduct by employees of the Department of Justice. The bill, which we have named the Citizens Protection Act, will also insure that the Department is not able to exempt its own attorneys from the same State laws and rules of ethics as all other attorneys in this country. ? The rights and freedoms of our citizens will come under increasing danger if we continue to allow the Justice Department to police itself in secret and exempt itself from regular rules of attorney conduct. We must strengthen oversight of the Department and shine a bright light on prosecutorial misconduct. ? The bill establishes clear standards of conduct for Department of Justice employees and makes them accountable for any misconduct. Our legislation makes it a punishable offense for any DOJ employee to engage in such actions as leaking information during an investigation, seeking the indictment of any person without probable cause and failing to release information that would exonerate a person under indictment. It also defines such actions as intentionally misleading a court as to the guilt of any person and knowingly misstating or altering evidence as punishable offenses. ? An independent review board is created to monitor compliance with those standards. The board would have the authority to impose penalties such as probation, demotion, suspension and dismissal of those found guilty of charges of misconduct. All meetings of the board will be open to the public. ? For the information of my colleagues, I am submitting for publication in the Congressional Record a partial list of specific instances of prosecutorial misconduct in federal cases which was prepared by the Congressional Research Service at my request. ? The second part of the bill insures that the Department of Justice, through attempts at self-regulation, cannot exempt its lawyers from the same rules of ethics that govern the professional conduct of all other attorneys. These rules are currently enforced, and must continue to be enforced, by the state supreme courts. The legislation affirms a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on January 6 which concludes that the Attorney General lacks statutory authority to promulgate a rule allowing government attorneys to engage in ex parte communications with persons represented by an attorney. ? Concerns about the DOJ's attempts at self-regulation have been expressed by the American Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Justices and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ? I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which responsibly checks the potential for misconduct and self-regulation without impeding the mission of the Department of Justice. Allowing informants to exercise effective unguided prosecutorial discretion: United States v. Taylor, 956 F.Supp. 622, 658-60 (D.S.C. 1997)(1). Bombarding individual with undercover solicitations to commit a crime whose prosecution is characterized to targeted individual as constitutionally suspect: Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)(2). Badgering witnesses, themselves under indictment, while promising the indictments against them will be dismissed if they testify for the government: United States v. LaFunente, 54 F.3d 457, 461-62 (8th Cir. 1995)(1). Threatening a witness with loss of immunity from prosecution if he testifies for the defense: United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 991-93 (11th Cir. 1997)(1). Threatening to prosecute: United States v. Smith, 478 F.2d 976, 979 (D.C. Cir. 1973)(2). Interviewing witness before the beginning of the case for the defense during which the prospect of incrimination was discussed: United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 228 (3d Cir. 1976)(2). `Prosecutor's eleventh hour telephone call to witness's attorney reminding him of potential fifth amendment problem if witness took the stand': United States v. MacCloskey, 682 F.2d 468, 479 (4th Cir. 1982)(2). Conditioning a potential defense witness's plea bargain on his continued agreement not to testify at the trial of the accused: United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977)(2). United States v. Wayte, 479 U.S. 598 608 (1985) (`the decision to prosecute may not be based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights')(3). Selective Prosecution On the basis of race: United States v. Armstrong, 116 S. Ct. 1480 (1996)(3). On the basis of religion: United States v. Cyprian, 23 F. 3d 1189, 1195-196 (7th Cir. 1994)(3). On the basis of gender: United States v. Redobndo-Lemos, 955 F. 2d 1296, 1298-1300 (9th Cir. 1992)(3). Solely on the basis of national origin: United States v. Al Jibori, 90 F. 3d 22, (2d Cir. 1996)(3). Based on the exercise of First Amendment rights: United States v. Bayless, 923 F. 2d 70, 72 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Steele, 461 F. 2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1972)(2). Vindictive Prosecution Prosecution based on prior invocation of constitutional rights (ordinarily rights of criminally accused): United States v. Godwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372-80 (1982)(3). Prosecuting, when considering the evidence as a whole, there is no probable cause: United States v. Ramming, 915 F. Supp. 854, 867-69 (S.D. Tex. 1996)(1). Securing incriminating statements from the accused with assurances that he or she would not be prosecuted: United States v. Dudden, 65 F. 3d 1461, 1468-469 (9th Cir. 1995) (1). Prosecuting in breach of a plea agreement: United States v. Holloway, 74 F. 3d 249, 251 (11th Cir. 1996)(1); United States v. Digregorio, 795 F. 2d 630, 638 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), citing United States v. Fields, 592 F. 2d 638 647-48 (2d Cir. 1979), inter alia (3). Abuse of the Grand Jury Process Currying the favor of a grand jury panel: United States v. Breslin, 916 F. Supp. 438, 442, 443 (E.D.Pa. 1996)(1). Encouraging the grand jury to act with unnecessary haste: United States v. Breslin, 916 F. Supp. at 443, 445 (E.D.Pa. 1996)(1). Misleading the grand jury to the belief that they were required to accept hearsay evidence: United States v. Breslin, 916 F. Supp. at 444-45 (E.D.Pa. 1996)(1). Providing the grand jury with inaccurate statement of the requirements for indictment: United States v. Breslin, 916 F. Supp. at 445-46 (E.D. Pa. 1996)(1). Using grand jury subpoenas directed against the attorney of the target of the investigation to disrupt attorney-client relationship and otherwise harass the attorney and his client. In re Grand Jury Matters, 593 F. Supp. 103 (D.N.H. 1984), aff'd, 751 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1984)(2). Inflammatory remarks before the grand jury suggesting that a target of the investigation may have `bugged' the grand jury room to discover witness testimony against him: United States v. Griffith, 756 F.2d 1244, 1246-249 (6th Cir. 1985)(2). Suggesting, without foundation, organized crime links to the target of a grand jury tax investigation and commenting on the veracity of witnesses before the grand jury, conduct characterized as `improper, reprehensible, and unacceptable:' United States v. Serubo, 604 F.2d 807, 814-16 (3d Cir. 1979)(2). Intentional presentation of incompetent and misleading evidence to the grand jury for `no other purpose than [improper] calculated prejudice:' United States v. Samango, 607 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1979)(2). Intentional presentation of false, disparaging, unsworn and irrelevant evidence: United States v. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757, 760-61 (2d Cir. 1983)(2). Using a `forthwith' grand jury subpoena duces tecum in lieu of a search warrant when grand jury was not in session: United States v. Hilton, 534 F.2d 556, 565 (3d Cir. 1976)(2). Offering extensive, frequent comments amounting to unsworn testimony and misstatements of the law, coupled with use of `forthwith' subpoenas, plays upon jurors' patriotism, and heavy-handed questioning of witnesses: United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc., 518 F.Supp. 179 (C.D.Cal. 1981), rev'd, 719 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1983) (prosecutor's `abusive' and `overzealous' misconduct was not sufficiently prejudicial to want dismissal of the resulting indictment)(2). Advising grand jury that an important government witness would not be testifying before them because if he did organized crime, with whom the targets of the investigation were associated, might harm him: United States v. Riccobene, 451 F.2d 586, 587 (3d Cir. 1971)(2). Leaking information on matters occurring before the grand jury to the press: In re Grand Jury Investigation (Lance), 610 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1980) (reversing a lower court denial for a hearing on whether sanctions where appropriate for such disclosures); Barry v. United States, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir. 1989)(same)(2). Knowingly permitting indictment based at least in part on material, perjured evidence: United States v. Basurto, 497 F.2d 781, 784-87 (9th Cir. 1974)(2). Misleading grand jury by unauthorized and `swearing in' designation IRS agents as `agents of the grand jury' United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1328-330 (D.Colo. 1984), rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Misleading grand jury through the exclusive use of hearsay summaries to secure the indictment of one of accused: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1339-341 (D. Colo. 1984), rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on ground district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Permitting unauthorized disclosure of grand jury materials to IRS employees with no criminal law enforcement-related responsibilities: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1331-332 (D. Colo. 1984), Rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Allowing improper use of grand jury materials for purposes of IRS audits unrelated to any criminal investigation: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1332-334 (D.Colo. 1984), rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy(2). Widespread disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury in `target letters': United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1334-335 (D.Colo. 1984), rev'd, 921 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Improperly informing witnesses that grand jury secrecy provisions applied to them: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1335-336 (D.Colo. 1984), rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy) (2). Provide witnesses with pocket immunity in the form of assurance letters without authorization: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1336-338 (D. Colo. 1984), rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Intentionally calling witnesses before the grand jury with the knowledge that they would calim their privilege against self-incrimination in order to prejudice the grand jury against the target of the investigation and their activities: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1338-339 (D. Colo. 1984), rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Using threats and verbal abuse against an expert grand jury witness for disagreeing with the legal theories espoused by the IRS: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1343 (D. Colo. 1984), rev'd, 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987) (on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Calling a witness before the grand jury solely for the purpose of prosecuting the witness for perjury on the basis of his testimony: United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir, 1991)(3). Abuse of process: use of court subpoenas for office interviews: United States v. Lilla-Chaparro, 115 F.3d 797, 804 (10th Cir. 1997)(1). [Page: E302] Delays Pre-Indictment Delays Intentional pre-indictment delay, prejudicial to the defendant, and perpetrated by the government for reasons of tactical advantage: United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795 n.17 (1977)(3). Post-Indictment Delays Intentional post-indictment delay, prejudicial to the defendant, and perpetrated by the government for reasons of tactical advantage: United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 (1972)(3). Failure to Provide Defense With Material, Exculpatory Evidence or Evidence Tending to Impeach Critical Government Witness [Brady v. Maryland, 83 (1963)(3)]: Failure to disclose extraordinary privileges afforded government inmate witnesses: United States v. Doyle, 121 F.3d 1078, 1082 n.2 (7th Cir. 1997) (giving El Rukn inmate witnesses access to internal prosecution memoranda, drugs, sex and unlimited free telephone calls; and valuable gifts, including cash, clothing, `walkman' radios, food, cigarettes and beer')(1). Failure to disclose the presentation of misleading evidence: United States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389, 391, 392 (2d Cir. 1997)(1). Failure to disclose the presentation of false evidence: United States v. Alzate, 47 F.3d 1103, 1107-11 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir. 1995)(1). Failure to disclose the criminal record of a government witness: United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir. 1995)(1). Failure to disclose existence and extent of the criminal involvement of individual, the accused identified in her duress defense, United States v. Udechukwu, 11 F.3d 1101, 1104-106 (1st Cir. 1993)(1). Failure to confirm (and denial) defense counsel suggestion that witness, whom the defense was unable to locate and who was central to the defense of the accused, had entered a plea bargain agreement with the government requiring his testimony, United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315, 1316-325 (9th Cir. 1993)(1). Failure to disclose evidence that the witness, who testified that the accused had paid him to hold drugs, had lied in earlier proceedings involving the same alleged conspiracy United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514, 518-19 (D.C.Cir. 1996(1). Failure to disclose that the principal government witness was under criminal investigation for unrelated misconduct: United States v. Kelly, 35 F.3d 929, 937 (4th Cir. 1994)(1). Failure to disclose threats against one government witness made by a second government witness: United States v. O'Conner, 64 F.3d 355, 359-60 (8th Cir. 1995)(1). Interference With the Attorney-Client Relationship Allowing an attorney to act as an agent of the government and solicit incriminating evidence from his or her client: United States v. Sabri, 973 F.Supp. 134, 147 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); United States v. Marshank, 777 F.Supp. 1507 (N.D.Cal. 1991)(1). Surrepitious, improper acquisition of attorney work product: United States v. Horn, 811 F.Supp. 739, 749 (D.N.H. 1992(1). Manifestly and avowedly corrupt intrusions: United States v. Schwimmer, 924 F.2d 443, 477 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting a similar view expressed in United States v. Gartner), 518 F.2d 633, 637 (2d Cir. 1975)(3). Improper acquisition of defense strategy with resulting injury to the accused or benefit to the government: United States v. Cross, 928 F.2d 1030, 1053 (11th Cir. 1991)(3). Post-indictment Contact in the Absence of Counsel Undercover, post-indictment solicitation of incriminating statements in the absence of retained counsel: Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)(2). Conducting plea negotiations directly with an indicted defendant without notifying retained counsel and in violation of applicable ethical restrictions: United States v. Lopez, 765 F.Supp. 1433, 1456-463 (N.D.Cal 1991)(1). Post-indictment interview of the employees of the accused out of the presence and without notice to counsel: United States v. Kilpatrick, 594 F.Supp. 1324, 1342 (D.Colo. 1984), rev'd 821 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1987), aff'd sub nom., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1987)(on grounds district court dismissal of indictments was inappropriate remedy)(2). Trial Conflict of Interest Prosecuting a case in which the prosecutor has a personal, pecuniary interest in the outcome: United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238, 1275 (D.C.Cir. 1981)(3). Prosecuting a case in which the prosecutor's interests in his personal and professional reputation are threatened by a bona fide civil action alleging bad faith in the performance of official duties: United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238, 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1981)(3). Prosecuting a case using information secured from the accused when the prosecutor was acting as the attorney for the accused: Wilkins v. Bowersox, 933 F.Supp. 1496, 1521-522 (W.D.Mo. 1996)(3). Representing the United States in both regulatory and criminal proceedings: United States ex rel. S.E.C. v. Carter, 907 F.2d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 1990)(`SEC attorneys' previous involvement in underlying civil case created a potential for conflict and an appearance of impropriety. This overt and substantial interest in the case and the misstatements in the SEC attorneys' brief undermine our confidence in these prosecutions . . . appointment of the SEC attorneys as special prosecutors was plain error')(3). Prosecuting a case in which the prosecutor is an essential witness: United States v. Torres, 503 F.2d 1072, 1083 (2d Cir. 1974)(2). Allowing an attorney representing the government in a related civil matter to prosecute: United States ex rel. S.E.C. v. Carter, 907 F.2d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 1990)(2). Improper Argument Suggesting Guilt by Association Emphasizing the similarities between the accused and a codefendant/witness who had pled guilty: United States v. Dworken, 855 F.2d 12, 29-32 (1st Cir. 1988)(2). Arguing for the conviction of the accused on the basis of an earlier conviction of an alleged co-conspirator: United States v. Mitchell, 1 F.3d 235. 238-42 (4th Cir. 1993)(1). Suggesting Guilt Based on the Adverse Inference From Claim of Right or Privilege Commenting on the silence of the accused after notification of Miranda rights: United States v. Thomas, 943 F.Supp. 693 699-701 (E.D. Tex. 1996)(1); Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618-19 (1976)(3). Commenting, directly or indirectly, on the accused's failure to testify: Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 611-15 (1965)(3). Commenting, directly or indirectly, on the accused's failure to testify: United States v. Roberts, 119 F.3d 1006, 1015 (1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Wihbey, 75 F.3d 761, 771 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Kallin, 50 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Cotnam, 88 F.3d 487, 497-500 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Hardy, 37 F.3d 753, 756-59 (1st Cir. 1994)(1). Commenting, direct or indirect, upon the failure of the accused to testify: United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1565-568 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Eltayib, 88 F.3d 157, 172 (2d Cir. 1996)(2). Commenting on the demeanor of the accused: United States v. Leal, 75 F.3d 219, 225 (6th Cir. 1996)(1). Commenting, uninvited, upon the failure of the accused to present evidence, either generally or specifically: United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1237-238 (5th Cir. 1990)(2). Commenting on the accused's invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination before the grand jury: United States v. Bustamante, 45 F.3d 933, 946 (5th Cir. 1995)(1). Calling a witness the prosecutor knows will validly invoke a privilege with adverse inferences for the accused: United States v. Brown, 12 F.3d 52, 54 (5th Cir. 1994)(1). Referring to invocation of the Fourth Amendment rights by the accused: United States v. Thomas, 93 F.3d 479, 487 (8th Cir. 1996)(1). [Page: E303] Inflammatory Remarks Sympathy for witnesses: United States v. Morgan, 113 F.3d 85, 90 (7th Cir. 1997)(1). Religious beliefs: United States v. Levy-Cordero, 67 F.3d 1002, 1008 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Cartagena-Carrasquillo, 70 F.3d 706, 712-14 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Manning, 23 F.3d 570, 573 (1st Cir. 1994); Arrieta-Agressot v. United States, 3 F.3d 525, 527 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d 120, 133 (1st Cir. 1987)(1). Racial and/or provincial bias against the accused: United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1052 (8th Cir. 1996)(1). Inviting a guilty verdict based on the out of state residence of the accused: United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 199 3)(2). Calling upon the jury `to get even for all the wrongs imposed on the good people of our society' by convicting the accused: United States v. Doe, 860 F.2d 488, 492-94 (1st Cir. 1988)(2). Graphic comment suggesting a lack of patriotism on the part of the accused: United States v. Rodriquez, 765 F.2d 1546, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985). Persistent references to the poverty, to Christmas-time, to disadvantaged women and children, and to economic depression as appropriate backdrops to the crime with which the defendant was accused: United States v. Payne, 2 F.3d 706, 711-16 (6th Cir. 1993)(1). Suggesting that funding for school districts was imperilled by the gambling related RICO activities of the accused: United States v. Vaccaro, 115 F.3d 1211, 1218 (5th Cir. 1997)(1). Bad Character Remarks Emphasizing the bad character (violent and vicious criminal) of the accused: United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 30-31 (1st Cir. 1996)(1). Repeated references to the past criminal record of the accused during closing argument: United States v. Jackson, 41 F.3d 1231, 1233 (8th Cir. 1994)(1). Misrepresentation, in the presence of the jury, that the defendant accused of harboring illegal aliens had himself entered the country illegally: United States v. Santana-Camacho, 833 F.2d 371 (1st Cir. 1987)(2). Presentation of emotional evidence of the violent acts of an accused charged with fraud, attempting to impeach a defense witness with prejudicial questions for which there was no evidentiary basis, and arguing guilt on the basis of counts dismissed by the court and contrary to the evidence; United States v. McBride, 862 F.2d 1316 (8th Cir. 1988)(2). Attacking Defense Counsel or the Role of Defense Counsel Ridiculing defense counsel and offering personal opinions on credibility of defense witnesses: United States v. Collins, 78 F.3d 1021, 1039-40 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Barr, 892 F.Supp. 51, 57 (D.Conn. 1995); United States v. Bautista, 23 F.3d 725, 733-34 (2d Cir. 1994)(1). Stating or implying to the jury that defense counsel has suborned perjury: United States v. Verna, 113 F.3d 499, 504 (4th Cir. 1997)(1). Suggesting or implying that the purpose of defense counsel is to prevent the jury from discerning the truth: United States v. Frederick, 78 F.3d 1370, 1379-380 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Vaccaro, 115 F.3d 1211, 1218 (5th Cir. 1997) (prosecutor's statement to the jury that it was the job of defense attorneys to muddle the issues was clearly improper)(1). Repeatedly accusing defense counsel, in the presence of the jury, of intentionally misleading the jurors and witnesses and of lying in court: United States v. McLain, 823 F.2d 1457, 1462 (11th Cir. 1987)(2). Attacking the role of defense counsel and the integrity of defense counsel: United States v. Friedman, 909 F.2d 705, 707-10 (2d Cir. 1990)(2). Improper Characterization of Defense Witnesses or Evidence Attacking witness credibility with evidence not on the record: United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1264 (3d Cir. 1995); United States v. Mueller, 74 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Crutchfield, 26 F.3d 1098, 1100-103 (11th Cir. 1994)(1). Arguing that the accused and witnesses for the defense have lied: United States v. Moore, 11 F.3d 475, 480-81 (4th Cir. 1993)(1). Characterizing the testimony of the accused and defense witnesses as lies: United States v. Smith, 982 F.2d 681, 684 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234, 1237-238 (5th Cir. 1990)(2). Puffing Up The Government's Case Urging conviction on the basis of the prestige of the court, the government, or the prosecutors: United States v. Catillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1498 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Melendez, 57 F.3d 238, 240-241 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Richardson, XXX F.3d XXX, (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380, 1389-390 (6th Cir. 1994)(1). Bolstering witness credibility with evidence not on the record: United States v. Henry, 47 F.3d 17, 21 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d 1295, 1304 (7th Cir. 1995)(1). Vouching for government witness's credibility: United States v. Cotnam, 88 F.3d 487, 500 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Manning, 25 F.3d 570, 572-74 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380, 1389-390 (6th Cir. 1994)(1). Vouching for the credibility of government witnesses: United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Eyster, 948 U.S. 1196, 1204-206 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Simtob, 901 F.2d 799, 805-6 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Eltayib, 88 F.3d 157, 172 (2d Cir. 1996)(2). Telling the jury how uncalled witness would testify if called: United States v. Molina-Guevara, 96 F.3d 698, 703, 704-5 (3d Cir. 1996). Arguing to the jury, after repeated admonishment by the court, that the government only prosecutes the guilty: United States v. Stefan, 784 F.2d 1093, 1099-1100 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Smith, 982 F.2d 681, 684 (1st Cir. 1993)(2). Reliance on Facts Not Evidence Knowing reference to inadmissible or unsupported evidence during the prosecution's opening statement: United States v. Millan, 812 F.Supp. 1086, 1088-89 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)(1). Urging conviction by reference to inadmissible evidence: United States v. Adams, 74 F.3d 1093, 1096-98 (11th Cir. 1996)(1). Securing conviction on allegations stated as facts but not in evidence: United States v. Berry, 92 F.3d 597, 598-99 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Morseley, 64 F.3d 907, 912 (4th Cir. 1995) (it was unquestionably improper for the prosecutor to tell the jury in his closing argument that the accused had confessed when he had not); United States v. Anderson, 61 F.3d 1290, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995) (it was improper for the prosecutor to inform the jury that the accused had ruined `literally thousands and thousands of lives' even though the government offered no evidence to support such a statement); United States v. Blakey, 14 F.3d 1557 (11th Cir. 1994) (unsupported argument to the jury that the accused was a `professional criminal'); United States v. Bautista, 23 F.3d 725, 733-34 (2d Cir. 1994)(1). Reliance on Perjury or Deception Presentation of false evidence: Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). Misleading the court and jury: United States v. Forlorma, 94 F.3d 91, 94-5 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389, 391, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Alzate, 47 F.3d 1103, 1107-11 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Udechukwu, 11 F.3d 1101, 1104-106 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315, 1316-325 (9th Cir. 1993)(1). Offering perjurious testimony: United States v. Brown, 121 F.3d 700 (1997)(1). Using or failing to correct clearly perjurious testimony: United States v. Rivera Pedin, 861 F.2d 1522, 1529-530 (11th Cir. 1988)(2). Intentionally misrepresenting the state of the law to the jury: United States v. Thomas, 943 F.Supp. 693, 699-701 (E.D. Tex. 1996)(1). Intentionally failing to correct erroneous testimony: United States v. Young, 17 F.3d 1201, 1202-203 (9th Cir. 1994)(1). Encouraging misrepresentations in order to bolster the perjured testimony of a government witness: United States v. Eyster, 948 U.S. 1196, 1204-206 (11th Cir. 1991)(2). Post-Trail Contact in the Absence of Counsel Questioning a defendant, without notifying his counsel, concerning matters arising in a sentencing-related medical examination: United States v. Adonis, 744 F.Supp. 336, 345-47 (D.D.C. 1990)(2). END - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: MSNBC (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 15:45:47 PST It's a little early to say anything about the Media yet, but we can allways hope..... On May 26, RHill@MICKEY.GC.WHECN.EDU wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I've been home sick most of today, but I did manage to see some afternoon Issues Talk Program, or something like that on MSNBC at about 2:00 pm EST today. I was in a stupor, so forgive the sketchiness. But, on that talk show, about the Oregon Shooting, were four panelists--the official VP for Media Relations for HCI, (whatever her name was), the senior MSNBC Legal Analyst, and two other panelists. The VP for Media Relations (again, I forget her name amongst all the emergency trips to the bathroom) got consistently hammered by the other three panelists and the host for trying to make Oregon, and the other school shootings a gun control issue. None of the panelists were pro-gun by any means, but all three kept slapping that HCI rep down with statements such as "But even banning all guns won't fix anything. Even if you take guns away from angry, messed-up kids, you still have angry, messed-up kids who want to kill. They'll just use bombs, or baseball bats, or some other weapon." Looked like HCI's one-message Harpie was getting hammered pretty well. I managed to grin a bit in between the dry heaves. Roy Hill [------------------------- 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 Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting] Date: 26 May 1998 07:40:11 +0500 > Can anyone supply any information on the other shootings where Prozac was > involved? Working from memory, there's Patrick Purdy/Stockton, CA Laurie Dann/IL (?) Joseph Weisbecker/Louisville or Lexington, KY I'm sure there are several others. Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Date: 26 May 1998 19:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Thank you. At 07:40 AM 5/26/98 +0500, you wrote: >> Can anyone supply any information on the other shootings where Prozac was >> involved? > >Working from memory, there's >Patrick Purdy/Stockton, CA >Laurie Dann/IL (?) >Joseph Weisbecker/Louisville or Lexington, KY > >I'm sure there are several others. > >Brad > >- > > S. "Getting the facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality." -- Peter W. Huber - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Date: 26 May 1998 20:32:53 -0700 At 07:40 AM 5/26/98 +0500, you wrote: >> Can anyone supply any information on the other shootings where Prozac was >> involved? > >Working from memory, there's >Patrick Purdy/Stockton, CA I'm pretty sure that Purdy is pre-Prozac. Purdy was back in the mid 80's; Prozac wasn't out then. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) Registered Libertarian --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ Bureau of Justice statistics report that every day, 14 people will be murdered, 48 women raped, and 570 people robbed by criminals free on parole and probation. Keeping criminals in jail DOES reduce crime! Proud Member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting Date: 26 May 1998 23:06:37 +0500 > >Working from memory, there's > >Patrick Purdy/Stockton, CA > > I'm pretty sure that Purdy is pre-Prozac. Purdy was back in the mid 80's; > Prozac wasn't out then. I could easily be wrong on the Purdy/Prozac call, Ken. He was definitely on some sort of psychotropic meds, though; that's been documented. Perhaps Weisbecker was the first Prozac guy? FWIW, Hinckley was on Valium. Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: 1st Gun Confiscation ! - With No Crime Committed (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 18:27:58 PST On May 26, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] 15-year-old charged, father's guns seized after teacher threatened Associated Press, 05/26/98 11:20 LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) - Skittish after a wave of school shootings, police arrested a 15-year-old boy and seized more than 20 guns legally owned by his father after the boy showed a teacher a drawing of someone being shot. The Pinelands Regional High School sophomore was charged with making terroristic threats against the 35-year-old teacher Friday. Fearful that the boy had access to them, police seized the weapons - including two AK-47s - and more than 100 rounds of ammunition as a precaution. The father had the appropriate ownership documents for the weapons and was not charged, police said. ``There has to be a concern in the wake of everything going on around the country,'' said police Detective Robert F. Knapp, referring to last week's schools shooting in Springfield, Ore., and others that preceded it. Neither the boy's name nor the teacher's name were released. The teacher told police the boy showed her ``a handwritten drawing of a person being killed at gunpoint,'' according to police reports. While in class, the boy had showed his teacher the drawing and asked what she thought of it. The drawing depicted a male victim in the crosshairs of a rifle scope saying ``Help.'' Another figure in the drawing said ``You're dead.'' The boy had behavior problems in school and ``past incidents of aggressive behavior,'' Knapp said. In addition, the boy had written a fairy tale in his English class that included a graphic murder, said Tish Steward, a math teacher at the school who is president of the Pinelands Teachers' Association. ``To tell you the truth, I'd be very disturbed,'' said Steward. ``It was very frightening to this particular person.'' The boy, who was released to his parents, was scheduled to appear Tuesday in Ocean County Family Court. -- http://www.boston.com/dailynews/wirehtml/146/15_year_old_charged__father_s_guns_.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: Subject: TWA-800: Admiral Moorer (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 08:26:53 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following are quotes from Admiral Thomas H. Moorer: _______________________________________________________ Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of=20 Staff, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN, Ret. July 17, 1998, will mark the second anniversary of the=20 mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long=20 Island, killing 230 men, women and children. ... The FBI and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) =2E.. theory is that the crash was initiated by an explosion=20 of fuel in the plane's center tank, but the evidence they=20 cite to support this is so weak that many people have=20 been unwilling to accept it. As a former Navy aviator and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs=20 of Staff, I am puzzled and disturbed by the inconclusive=20 results of this investigation. Blaming the crash on an=20 explosion in the fuel tank does not ring true for several=20 reasons. First of all, modern aviation fuel is designed=20 for safety. It does not readily burn, much less explode.=20 There is no precedent for a mid-air fuel tank explosion=20 in a modern jet airliner using Jet A-1 fuel without the=20 involvement of a high explosive device. The NTSB searched long and hard for evidence that some- thing in the center wing tank of TWA Flight 800 had created=20 a spark that set off a powerful explosion in the nearly=20 empty tank. They could find nothing that would have=20 generated such a spark. And unless the fuel was heated to at least 127 degrees=20 Fahrenheit at sea level, you couldn't burn it with a match.=20 That is why these modern jets using modern fuel have flown=20 billions of miles with never an accident of this type un- less a high explosive was involved. There is no doubt that there was an explosion in the center=20 wing fuel tank of TWA Flight 800, but the evidence indicates=20 that it was the result of the explosion of a powerful missile=20 outside the tank.=20 =2E.. there is a great deal of important evidence bearing=20 on the crash that apparently has not been given the atten- tion that it deserves by either the official investigators=20 or the news media. The most obvious and inexplicable example=20 is the evidence provided by 183 eyewitnesses interviewed by=20 the FBI who saw a streak of light heading toward the plane=20 immediately before the explosion. According to an FBI report,=20 96 of these eyewitnesses said they saw the streak of light=20 rising from the surface. The disregard of the evidence provided by all these=20 eyewitnesses raises a number of questions. =B7 Why did the FBI insist that the NTSB not allow any=20 eyewitnesses to testify at its public hearing on the=20 causes of the crash? =B7 Why did the Justice Department, through an assistant=20 U.S. attorney in New York City, order the investigative=20 team assembled by the NTSB not to undertake any eye- witness interviews, but to leave that to the FBI? =B7 Why did the FBI refuse to let the NTSB investigators=20 participate in its interviews of eyewitnesses? =B7 Why has the FBI refused to release its eyewitness=20 interview reports to the press and public? =B7 Why has the government tried to discredit eyewitness=20 testimony with the claim that all those people who said=20 they saw a rocket-like object rising from the surface and=20 exploding 14,000 feet up had really seen burning fuel=20 spilling from the fuel tanks in the plane's wings. The intelligent, sober people who saw a streak of light=20 ascending shake their heads in disbelief when told that=20 the government is saying that they really saw burning=20 fuel falling. There are many more questions I would like to see answered.=20 The investigators conducted tests to determine what impact=20 a missile would have on the plane, what kind of "fingerprints"=20 it would leave on the wreckage. But their testing raises=20 these questions: =B7 Why did they limit their testing of the impact of a=20 missile to small shoulder-fired missiles such as the=20 Stinger? =B7 Don't they know that these small missiles would not=20 have been effective against a 747 flying at nearly=20 14,000 feet? =B7 Why didn't they look for the clues that would be left=20 by the explosion of a large sophisticated missile=20 detonating in close proximity to the target? =B7 Why did they ignore the compelling evidence that=20 indicates that this is just what happened? The public is entitled to an answer to those questions, but=20 the mainstream media are not asking the questions. They have=20 been content to accept the official explanation of the crash,=20 disregarding all the evidence that casts doubt upon it. --------- End of Quotes from Admiral Thomas Moorer --------- Full text: http://members.aol.com/RobertD202/Donaldson.html=20 **************************************************************** VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net=20 ________________________________________________________________ TWA-800 CASE CORE --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm=20 ________________________________________________________________ "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows=20 up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning." Max Plank - Nobel physicist "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim=20 to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: 1st Gun Confiscation ! - With No Crime Committed (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 18:27:58 PST On May 26, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] 15-year-old charged, father's guns seized after teacher threatened Associated Press, 05/26/98 11:20 LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) - Skittish after a wave of school shootings, police arrested a 15-year-old boy and seized more than 20 guns legally owned by his father after the boy showed a teacher a drawing of someone being shot. The Pinelands Regional High School sophomore was charged with making terroristic threats against the 35-year-old teacher Friday. Fearful that the boy had access to them, police seized the weapons - including two AK-47s - and more than 100 rounds of ammunition as a precaution. The father had the appropriate ownership documents for the weapons and was not charged, police said. ``There has to be a concern in the wake of everything going on around the country,'' said police Detective Robert F. Knapp, referring to last week's schools shooting in Springfield, Ore., and others that preceded it. Neither the boy's name nor the teacher's name were released. The teacher told police the boy showed her ``a handwritten drawing of a person being killed at gunpoint,'' according to police reports. While in class, the boy had showed his teacher the drawing and asked what she thought of it. The drawing depicted a male victim in the crosshairs of a rifle scope saying ``Help.'' Another figure in the drawing said ``You're dead.'' The boy had behavior problems in school and ``past incidents of aggressive behavior,'' Knapp said. In addition, the boy had written a fairy tale in his English class that included a graphic murder, said Tish Steward, a math teacher at the school who is president of the Pinelands Teachers' Association. ``To tell you the truth, I'd be very disturbed,'' said Steward. ``It was very frightening to this particular person.'' The boy, who was released to his parents, was scheduled to appear Tuesday in Ocean County Family Court. -- http://www.boston.com/dailynews/wirehtml/146/15_year_old_charged__father_s_guns_.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: Subject: Ha Ha Margolis on China Gate (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 08:55:28 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- X-Authentication-Warning: ns1.prophetserv.com: majordom set sender to owner-foreignc@foreigncorrespondent.com using -f Sender: owner-foreignc@foreigncorrespondent.com Reply-To: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com Foreign Correspondent Inside Track On World News By International Syndicated Columnist & Broadcaster Eric Margolis ATTENTION ALL CHINESE MISSILE SHOPPERS! By Eric Margolis 24 May 1998 WASHINGTON DC - The scandal-ridden Clinton White House looks like the `Jerry Springer Show,' Newt Gingrich observed last week. It certainly does. Where else but on the Springer slimefest could you see such a collection of tawdry characters: fan dancers, thieving bankers and shyster lawyers; con-men and bunko artists; Chinese arms and drug dealers; dragon ladies; bagmen; and the exquisite Paula Jones. Plus. grand panjandrum of Washington influence peddlers, the late Ron Brown; chunky bar bouncers turned White House `security' consultants; red-neck bribesters from Arkansas; a Svengali-like friend of Bill, the most powerful chicken farmer since Heinrich Himmler; a gaggle of high Administration officials facing jail; Clinton's alter ego, porcine crook, Web Hubbell; Al Gore's money-laundering Buddhist monks; and unforgettable fellatrice, Monica Lewinsky. Americans, particularly women, shrug off this parade of sleaze. It's either too complicated, or who cares about ethics when the economy is on a roll. The Clinton Administration's counter-attack team, led by Ozark swamp-creature James Carville, has excelled in discrediting critics, and silencing witnesses by intimidation, or offers of government jobs. Clinton's lapdog attorney- general, Janet Reno, dutifully blocks investigations into Administration wrongdoing. But a very nasty scandal broke into the open last week that political Houdini Clinton will find harder to escape than Lewinsky's lips. Even his staunchest defenders have run for cover. Johnny Chung, a Chinese-born California businessman , gave at least $100,000 to the Democratic Party for President Clinton'' 1996 re-election campaign. Chung was one of many Asians (read Chinese) who donated millions of dollars to the Democratic Party, and to Clinton. In exchange, they got access to the White House, hugs and photo ops with Clinton - and favors. Republicans claimed Beijing was buying influence with the Administration by sneaking money to the Democrats. Federal investigators have just identified the first solid link between China and the White House. They discovered Chung's $100,000 came directly from the Chinese Army intelligence, via Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, daughter of China's highest-ranking defense official charged with development of missiles. Soon after the White House accepted Chinese money, an amazing coincidence occurred. Clinton ordered loosening of export controls on missile and satellite technology to China, overruling strong opposition from the Pentagon and State Department. `Loral,' an important, highly secretive aerospace firm run by CEO Bernard Schwartz, was allowed to sell formerly classified technology to China. So, to a lesser degree, was defense contractor, `Hughes Electronics.' Schwartz is reportedly the single largest contributor to the Democratic Party. He went to China with Clinton's chief bagman, Ron Brown, closed the satellite deal, and then gave the Democrats US $1.1 million. Just another coincidence, of course. Secret US technology passed to China as a result of these shady deals. Though supposedly for civilian satellites, the dual-use technology has already helped China improve the accuracy and reliability of its nuclear-armed ballistic missiles targeted on the US. Beijing spent its bribe money wisely - for a few millions it got advanced military technology worth 50 times more. Another curious coincidence. `Loral's' military division was a leading contractor for US intelligence agencies. US military sources have alleged for years that Loral illegally passed top secret American electronic warfare technology to Israel. CEO Schwartz is a major supporter of Israel. Loral denies these claims. Israel has become a prime supplier to China of western military technology, particularly aerospace systems. The Pentagon has long grumbled that Israel sells classified US technology to China - notably the Patriot missile, counter- measure systems, and phased- array radar - in violation of US law. Israel denies it. Efforts to investigate these charges have been blocked by the White House and Congress. Unlike all the other Clinton scandals, this time it won't be easy for the White House attack dogs to maul accusers. The FBI has an evidence trail leading direct to Beijing. This is too explosive for the usual Clinton double-talk - a possible major breach of national security. Even Clinton's tame Justice Department may not be able to stonewall the investigation. Many nations practice industrial/technological espionage. A KGB source in Moscow told me recently that 70% of all the Soviet Union/ Russia's modern military technology had been stolen from the west. China is no different. Nations, including the US, obtain technology by bribery or blackmail. But this is the first time I know of that a foreign power may have managed to directly manipulate the presidency. The only other case was in 1944, when Soviet intelligence had two major agents of influence in Franklin Roosevelt's White House. Maybe it's all just an incredible coincidence. Maybe Bill Clinton really did take time off from feverish fund raising for his re-election campaign to carefully evaluate and assist China's problem-plagued space program. Perhaps all those stacks of crisp $100 bills from Chinese visitors to the White House were really only to help Clinton with his well-known passion for chicken-fried rice. Slippery business deals and cash-stuffed envelopes are part of Arkansas political culture. You can buy anything and anyone down there, including the governor. We are now beginning to see what happens when small-town Ozark chicanery is writ large in Washington. Interestingly, the astute Chinese understood this fact long before the American public. Copyright eric margolis 1998 **************************************************************************** **** **************************************************************************** **** To receive Foreign Correspondent via email send a note to majordomo@foreigncorrespondent.com with the message in the body: subscribe foreignc To get off the list, send to the same address but write: unsubscribe foreignc WWW: www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com FAX: (416) 960-4803 Smail: Eric Margolis c/o Editorial Department The Toronto Sun 333 King St. East Toronto Ontario Canada M5A 3X5 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: Fratrum: 1st Gun Confiscation ! - With No Crime Committed (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 18:27:58 PST On May 26, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] 15-year-old charged, father's guns seized after teacher threatened Associated Press, 05/26/98 11:20 LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) - Skittish after a wave of school shootings, police arrested a 15-year-old boy and seized more than 20 guns legally owned by his father after the boy showed a teacher a drawing of someone being shot. The Pinelands Regional High School sophomore was charged with making terroristic threats against the 35-year-old teacher Friday. Fearful that the boy had access to them, police seized the weapons - including two AK-47s - and more than 100 rounds of ammunition as a precaution. The father had the appropriate ownership documents for the weapons and was not charged, police said. ``There has to be a concern in the wake of everything going on around the country,'' said police Detective Robert F. Knapp, referring to last week's schools shooting in Springfield, Ore., and others that preceded it. Neither the boy's name nor the teacher's name were released. The teacher told police the boy showed her ``a handwritten drawing of a person being killed at gunpoint,'' according to police reports. While in class, the boy had showed his teacher the drawing and asked what she thought of it. The drawing depicted a male victim in the crosshairs of a rifle scope saying ``Help.'' Another figure in the drawing said ``You're dead.'' The boy had behavior problems in school and ``past incidents of aggressive behavior,'' Knapp said. In addition, the boy had written a fairy tale in his English class that included a graphic murder, said Tish Steward, a math teacher at the school who is president of the Pinelands Teachers' Association. ``To tell you the truth, I'd be very disturbed,'' said Steward. ``It was very frightening to this particular person.'' The boy, who was released to his parents, was scheduled to appear Tuesday in Ocean County Family Court. -- http://www.boston.com/dailynews/wirehtml/146/15_year_old_charged__father_s_guns_.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 Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: Fratrum: [Fwd: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting Date: 26 May 1998 23:06:37 +0500 > >Working from memory, there's > >Patrick Purdy/Stockton, CA > > I'm pretty sure that Purdy is pre-Prozac. Purdy was back in the mid 80's; > Prozac wasn't out then. I could easily be wrong on the Purdy/Prozac call, Ken. He was definitely on some sort of psychotropic meds, though; that's been documented. Perhaps Weisbecker was the first Prozac guy? FWIW, Hinckley was on Valium. Brad - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: 1st Gun Confiscation ! - With No Crime Committed (fwd) Date: 26 May 1998 18:27:58 PST On May 26, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] 15-year-old charged, father's guns seized after teacher threatened Associated Press, 05/26/98 11:20 LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) - Skittish after a wave of school shootings, police arrested a 15-year-old boy and seized more than 20 guns legally owned by his father after the boy showed a teacher a drawing of someone being shot. The Pinelands Regional High School sophomore was charged with making terroristic threats against the 35-year-old teacher Friday. Fearful that the boy had access to them, police seized the weapons - including two AK-47s - and more than 100 rounds of ammunition as a precaution. The father had the appropriate ownership documents for the weapons and was not charged, police said. ``There has to be a concern in the wake of everything going on around the country,'' said police Detective Robert F. Knapp, referring to last week's schools shooting in Springfield, Ore., and others that preceded it. Neither the boy's name nor the teacher's name were released. The teacher told police the boy showed her ``a handwritten drawing of a person being killed at gunpoint,'' according to police reports. While in class, the boy had showed his teacher the drawing and asked what she thought of it. The drawing depicted a male victim in the crosshairs of a rifle scope saying ``Help.'' Another figure in the drawing said ``You're dead.'' The boy had behavior problems in school and ``past incidents of aggressive behavior,'' Knapp said. In addition, the boy had written a fairy tale in his English class that included a graphic murder, said Tish Steward, a math teacher at the school who is president of the Pinelands Teachers' Association. ``To tell you the truth, I'd be very disturbed,'' said Steward. ``It was very frightening to this particular person.'' The boy, who was released to his parents, was scheduled to appear Tuesday in Ocean County Family Court. -- http://www.boston.com/dailynews/wirehtml/146/15_year_old_charged__father_s_guns_.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: Subject: Clinton's Rogues Gallery Date: 27 May 1998 09:01:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.freerepublic.com Topic: Clinton's Rogues Gallery Downside Legacy at Two Degrees of President Clinton Various FR Posters 4/23/98 Various FR Posters CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY: DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON The following list is a compilation from Free Republic posters, edited by Free Republic posters. It is dynamic, subject to continuing authentication, editing, correction and expansion. The list seeks to exclude emotion, judgment and rhetoric by using minimal qualifiers and gentler words - such as "contradiction" over the more inflammatory alternative. Please help to keep the list up-to-date, draw your own conclusions, and use it as you wish.=20 CONVICTIONS Webster Hubbell Jim McDougal Susan McDougal Gov. Jim Guy Tucker Stephen Smith David Hale Eugene Fitzhugh Charles Matthews Robert W. Palmer Chris Wade Neal T. Ainley Larry Kuca Henry Espy James Lake William J. Marks, Sr. John Latham John Haley Michael Brown (Ron Brown=92s son)=20 Eugene Lum Nora Lum Johnny Chung Tyson Foods Sun Diamond Growers Richard Douglas James Lake Ron Blackley Smith Barney Crop Growers Corporation Brook Keith Mitchell Sr. Five M Farming Enterprises John J. Hemmingson Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr. Municipal Healthcare Cooperative Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet Linda Jones Patsy Jo Wooten Allen Wooten Roger Clinton Dan Lasater Bill McCuen Dan Harmon Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default)=20 INDICTMENTS AND TARGETS Ron Brown (indictment was pending at time of death) Herby Branscum Robert Hill Mike Espy Henry Cisneros Jack Williams Archie Schaefer Charlie Trie Maria Hsia Nolanda Hill Babbit Ron Carey Monica Lewinsky Webster Hubbell, Wife and 2 Others (new charges) Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton Roger Tamraz (France)=20 PRIVILEGE CLAIMS Bruce Lindsey Sid Blumenthal Hillary Clinton Secret Service Foster=92s Law Firm (Hamilton?)=20 INTIMIDATION, BEATEN OR THREATENED Gary Johnson, Beaten LJ Davis, Beaten Larry Nichols, Threats (Several Attempts) Linda Tripp, Threats INTIMIDATION, IRS AUDIT Paula and Stephen Jones David Horowitz, head of Drudge defense fund The American Spectator Billy Dale (Travel Office)=20 Texe Marrs Joseph Farah (World Net Daily) Chuck Harder (People=92s Network Inc.) Western Journalism Center Citizens for a Sound Economy 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 Free Congress Foundation (warning?)=20 Fortress America (warning?)=20 INTIMIDATION, CHARACTER Ken Starr and prosecutorial staff - press materials, Carville declared "war," and White House officials "our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr" and "stand up to Starr" campaign. Gary Aldrich Matt Drudge - $30m Sid Blumenthal suit Linda Tripp - Pentagon information to New Yorker David Hale - David Pryor Rep. Barr & Judicial Committee Members - Mulholland Billy Dale (Travel Office) State Troopers via Buddy Young (Clinton) - (testified to procuring women) Three state troopers testified that they or their families were threatened if they talked. Dolly Kyle Browning testified her brother, a 1992 Clinton campaign worker, warned "we will destroy you" if she talked. Kathleen Willey - Nathan Landow flew her to his estate, conversation Jim Robinson - lawsuit threats Chris Emory Bruce Bates Jeff Evans Margie Gray Patricia and Glenn Mendoza (shouted remark at president) William E. Kelly (Chicago) Kent Masterson Brown Walter Gazecki Shelly Davis INTIMIDATION - TAX EXEMPT STATUS Christian Coalition Christian Coalition, California chapter San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition Three chapters of American Family Association Life Legal Defense Foundation Pierce Creek Church (Vestal, NY) Second Baptist Church (Lake Jackson, Texas)=20 OTHER CRIMINAL ASSOCIATES Jorge Cabrera Dan Lasater (Pardon by Gov. Clinton) Roger Clinton (half brother Pardon by Gov. Clinton) Arthur Coia Wang Jun PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES 2300 FBI Files improperly acquired (White House) - Marceca testified about these FBI used in White House claims in the firing of the White House Travel Office. Terry Lenzer and firm (Private/White House) Jack Palladino and firm (Private/Campaign)= =20 FBI used to remove Chef Sean Haddon TESTIMONY IN CONTRADICTION TO THE PRESIDENT Monica Lewisnky (on the tapes)= =20 Paula Jones Kathleen Willey Christy Zercher Gennifer Flowers Dolly Kyle Browning Elizabeth Ward Gracen Sally Perdue Pamela Blackard Debra Ballentine Larry Patterson L.D. Brown Roger Perry Danny Ferguson (cuts both ways) David Hale Jim McDougal APPEARANCE OF QUID PRO QUO Loral/Hughes - China Missile Guidance Indonesia/Riady - Sweet Coal Webb Hubbell - $700,00 in business in 6 months Elizabeth Ward Gracen - via Harry Thomason Teamsters/DNC - Mutual Financial Larry Lawrence - Buried in Arlington Goverment Jobs for Sexual Favors - Various Testimony Paying for Silence - Jones (via Thompson) .=20 Monica Lewinsky - Jobs/Vernon Jordan Monica Lewinsky - Job/U.N. Bill Richardson Larry Lawrence - Switzerland appointment (wife) Federal contracts to unionized companies (pending)=20 CLAIMING THE 5TH OR REFUSING TO ANSWER Susan McDougal Contempt of court Susan Thomases Clinton Advisor, 108 non-answers Webster Hubbell Former Associate Attorney General, 112 non-answers Maggie Williams Hillary Clinton=92s Former Chief of Staff, 96 non-answers Bruce Lindsey, Advisor, 7= 0 non-answers Neil Eggleston, Associate Counsel, 106 non-answers Roger Altman, Deputy Treasury Secretary, 208 non-answers Hillary Clinton, 58 non-answers Bill Clinton, 37 non-answers John Huang Jane Huang Johnny Chung Man Ya Shih David Wang Keshi Zhan Gin F. J. Chen Siuw Moi Lian Yi Chu Mark Middleton Seow Fong Ooi Joseph Landon Bin Yueh Jeng Hsiu Chu Lin Larry Wong Duangnet Kronenberg Jen Chin Hsueh Na-chi "Nancy" Lee Chi Rung Wang Hueutsan Huang Jou Sheng Yue Chu Yogesh Ghandi Judy Hsu Man Ho Steven Hwang Jane Dewi Tahir Manlin Foung Gilbert Colon Maria Mapili Yumei Yang Irene Wu Jie Su Hsiao Arapaho/Cheyenne Indians Mike Lin Hsiu Luan Tseng Hsin Chen Shih Zie Pan Huang Mark Jimenez Shu Jen Wu Michael Brown Woody Hwang Charles Intriago Simon Chen Sioeng Fei Man Jessica Elinitiarta Kent La Craig Livingstone FOREIGN WITNESSES, REFUSING TO ANSWER Ng Lap Seng Stephen Riady Roy Tirtadji Ken Hsui John Muncy James Lin Eugene Wu Mochtar Riady Stanley Ho Suma Ching Hai James Riady Daniel Wu Ambrose Hsuing Lay Kweek Wie Li Kwai Fai Bruce Cheung AVOIDING WITNESS BY LEAVING THE COUNTRY Elizabeth Ward Gracen Pauline Kanchanalak Ming Chen Antonio Pan John H.K. Lee Agus Setiawan Ted Sioeng Dewi Tirto Subandi Tanuwidjaja Soraya Wiriadinata Felix Ma Susanto Tanuwidjaja Suryanti Tanuwidjaja Subandi Tanuwidjaja Yanti Ardi Nanny Nitiarta Yopie Elnitiarta Maureen Elnitiarta Sandra Elnitiarta Sundari Elnitiarta WITNESS THAT LEFT THE COUNTRY, REASON UNKNOWN Arief Wiriandinata GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES Lincoln Bedroom v Contributions Queens Bedroom (overflow from Lincoln Bedroom) Trade Mission Seats v Contributions Coffees v Contributions Fund Raising Calls from White House White House Legal Office - Personal Defense Camp David Air Force One Kennedy Center USE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSE FBI/Travelgate INS/Pack the Vote 96 Justice/Firing all US Attorneys Presidential Counsel's Office/Personal Work BYPASS BY EXECUTIVE ORDERS Assault Weapons Domestic/NSC Greenhouse (executive order threat) American Heritage Rivers Initiative American Heritage Rivers Initiative - Biodiversity Treaty American Heritage Rivers Initiative - Council on Sustainable Development (Agenda 21/92 Rio Earth Summit) Designation of 1.7 Million Acres in South Utah Off-limits to Development (Sweet Coal)=20 STONEWALLS Billing records missing for 2 years (subpoenaed, crucial to FDIC investigation) appeared in White House living area and turned over several days after statute of limitation expired. Bruce Lindsey's notes, subpoenaed but not turned over until the day after the Senate's Whitewater Committee authorization expired. Hillary Clinton and White House lawyer talks claimed as executive privilege, then attorney client privilege, appealed to Supreme Court - ordered turned over. Existence of diaries subpoenaed in April 97, were "concealed" to October 97 and have not been released. Second set also not disclosed until three weeks before committee's deadline expired. Existence of videotapes subpoenaed in April 97 (coffees and fund-raisers) was not disclosed but then turned over October '97. FBI files from 91 (Chinese efforts to influence U.S. elections) were turned over five days after the Senate committee ended its hearings. White House continues to be unresponsive (from June 96 to date) to requests by Rep. Dave McIntosh, R-Ind., concerning its 300,000-name database. White House tried to delay the Paula Jones case until after Clinton left office, appealed to the Supreme Court, turned down unanimously. Existence of letters from Willey, subpoenaed by Jones' attorney was denied, but 15 were produced in response to 60 Minutes interview, by personal approval of president. Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her that if she were in New York, she might be able to avoid testifying in the Jones lawsuit Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her she would not have to turn over the gifts, subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's lawyers, if she did not have them in her possession. Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her that she could explain her White House visits as trips to see Ms.= =20 Currie. Clinton met with Ms. Currie on a Sunday in January, the day after his deposition in the Paula Jones case, posed and answered a series of questions to guide her through an account of his relationship with Lewinsky. The president placed Betty Currie at the center of all Lewinsky-related matters Mr. Clinton took Ms. Currie on his recent trip to Africa. Lewinsky tapes: she claims Clinton directed her to testify falsely in the Jones case. Under oath Ms. Tripp said she was told by Lewinsky to "lie and deny," Lewinsky passed along to Ms. Tripp three pages of "talking points" giving her instructions on how to lie under oath.=20 Clinton/Flowers tape: Clinton says "deny it" Flowers says "The only thing that concerns me . . . at this point, is the state job," to which Clinton replies, "Yeah, I never thought about that. . . . If they ever ask if you've talked to me about it, you can say no." Refusal to allow access to medical records.=20 SELF CONTRADICTION The president's videotaped statement to donors that he was raising soft money (illegally) to pay for reelection ads v his previous denials. Publicly pledging cooperation v strategy of stonewalling Jones and Starr and House/Senate Fictitious claim by president that he could not comment on the Lewinsky matter because he was legally required to keep silent. Clinton in January 98: "You and the American people have a right to get answers. I'd like for you to have more rather than less, sooner rather than later. So we'll work through it as quickly as we can and get all those questions out there to you" v February 98, "I've told the American people what is essential for them to know about this." Clinton's has changed from 'never having met Jones' to admitting that they may have been in the same room alone. Feb. 22 denial that White House "or any of President Clinton's private attorneys has hired or authorized any private investigator to look into the background of . . . investigators, prosecutors or reporters" v next day Terry Lenzner said that his firm, Investigative Group Inc., had been retained by the law firm representing Mr. Clinton in Mr. Starr's investigation. Clinton's statement he had "no specific recollection" of his meeting with Ms. Willey, v a later statement that he "has a very clear memory" of the meeting. Clinton denials in 1992 60 Minutes interview regarding Gennifer Flowers v (6 six years later) answering yes under oath. Clinton's 1994 statement on executive privilege, "It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance in which that would be an appropriate thing for me to do" and counsel (Cutler's) statement that (1994) it is practice "not to assert executive privilege" in circumstances involving communications relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials v executive privilege claims.=20 A SMOKING GUN?=20 The president has denied, under oath and in public statements, any sexual relations with Lewinsky. There are 20 hours of tape recordings between Lewinsky and Tripp, which details her affair with the president. Lewinsky proffer confirms a sexual relationship with him. Lewinsky told others about her encounters with the president. Others claim to have heard Clinton's messages left on her answering machine. The president gave Lewinsky gifts. Lewinsky sent courier packages to the president. Lewinsky turned the gifts over to Betty Currie, who gave them to Mr. Starr's investigators. Lewinsky made at least 37 visits to the White House after she was reassigned to the Pentagon, and Clinton met with her after she was subpoenaed by Jones.=20 ANOTHER SMOKING GUN?=20 President's deposition concerning Arkansas McDougal related bank fraud was denial. Susan McDougal's refusal to answer question "Did the president testify truthfully?" resulted in jail time. Bank documents found in trunk of abandoned car.=20 RECENT RESIGNATIONS George Stephanopoulos David Gergen Dee Dee Myers Dick Morris Robert Reich Ira Magaziner Frederico Pena Harold Ickes Mike Espy Roger Altman Les Aspin Leon Panetta Hazel O'Leary Warren Christopher Lanny Davis Franklin Raines (pending) Richard Riley (rumored) Robert Rubin (rumored) Mike McCurry (rumored) Thomas ("Mack") McLarty (rumored)=20 DEATHS - SUICIDES Vincent Foster (Whitehouse Deputy Counsel, Gunshot to mouth) Kathy Ferguson (ex-wife of Clinton co-defendant, Gunshot to head)= =20 Bill Shelton (Arkansas state trooper, Kathy Ferguson's fiancee, Gunshot to head) Susan Coleman (Alleged Clinton Girlfriend, 7.5 months pregnant, Gunshot to head) Jon Parnell Walker (RTC Investigator on Whitewater, fell from top of Lincoln Towers) Ed Willey ( Democratic Fundraiser, Gunshot to head)=20 DEATHS - HOMICIDES Mary Mahoney (Former White House intern shot multiple times in a Starbucks, no money taken) Luther "Jerry" Parks (Provided security for Clinton's campaign, multiple gunshots) Don Ives (Witness to Mena, gunshot/left to be run over by train) Kevin Henry (Witness to Mena, gunshot/left to be run over by train)=20 DEATHS - ACCIDENTS Ron Brown, Plane Crash (Commerce, Pathologists question wound to head on xrays) Victor Raisner, Plane Crash (National Finance Co-Chair Clinton for President) R. Montgomery Raiser, Plane Crash (Clinton campaign) Herschell Friday, Plane Explosion (Presidential Campaign Finance Committee) Paula Gober, Car Accident (Clinton Speech Interpreter) Stanley Heard, Plane Crash (Clinton Health Care Advisory Committee) Steven Dickson, Plane Crash (Clinton Health Care Advisory Committee) Johnny Lawhon, Car Accident (Found Whitewater Canceled Check in Car after Tornado) Brian Hassey, Helicopter Crash (Clinton Bodyguard)= =20 Timothy Sabel, Helicopter Crash (Clinton Bodyguard) William Barkley, Helicopter Crash (Clinton Bodyguard) Scott Reynolds, Helicopter Crash (Clinton Bodyguard) Betty Currie=92s brother, Car/Pedestrian Accident (Key Witness=92 brother) Shelley Kelly, Survived Brown Plane Crash - died hours later (Stewardess) Judy Gibbs, Fire (Alleged Clinton Girlfriend, Witness)= =20 DEATHS - NATURAL Jim McDougal, Heart Attack in Solitary (Witness in Whitewater)=20 DEATHS - UNKNOWN Barbara Wise (Mickey Kantor's press secretary found dead, nude, in a locked office at Commerce) Paul Tulley (Democratic National Committee, in Hotel Room)=20 DEATHS - UNRECORDED Various "Partial Birth" abortions since veto Draw your own conclusions. If you see an error or something missing - please post a correction as soon as possible.=20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Claire Wolfe, after the fall of justice Date: 27 May 1998 09:11:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [Note: No matter what your burning issue or political bent, every citizen needs to read this article. If the jury can no longer=20 be hung or nullify the law, what is the consequence to all? I read about two other recent examples of Gestapo justice=20 on FR lately. One was about peaceful anti-abortion demonstrators who were=20 standing on a public sidewalk who were arrested and one=20 woman's wrist was twisted and broken. Another concerned a man=20 arrested for refusing to give his thumbprint to cash a check=20 at a bank after he had provided other valid id. BCJ] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D AFTER THE FALL OF JUSTICE When Justice Leaves the Courtroom, Hope Turns Elsewhere This article was written for the Loompanics Unlimited summer 1998 catalog supplement. In Alaska, a demonstrator is charged with felony jury tampering for shouting, "Call 1-800-TEL-JURY!" within the hearing of jurors. Those who dial the number hear a recording that simply informs them they have a right to vote their conscience. In Washington state, a judge and three U.S. attorneys covertly excise key pages from a booklet before allowing it to be entered as defense evidence in the trial of several militia members. They are not charged with evidence tampering. Another day in the American court system. Justice, or its simulacrum,=20 is dispensed as judges and prosecutors see fit. There's nothing new in that. What's new, or what's dangerously on the increase, is the systematic rigging of the court system to preserve judicial power and punish anyone who dares challenge it. And what's more important -- but clearly unforeseen by the riggers -- is the catastrophe likely to arise from this power grab. Myths and Hopes We cherish a myth that the justice system is the last, best hope for the beleaguered "little guy" in the world of the powerful. No matter what happens, we've been told, even the humblest of us can "have our day in court," be heard and be vindicated, as long as truth and fairness are on our side. This was never literally true, of course. Any poor, black man can tell you the reality of justice. The surviving, imprisoned Branch Davidians can tell you, as can the girlfriend of a drug dealer, locked away for years for sitting in a car during a transaction. Dozens of militiamen, set up by government informants, can tell you. As can dope smokers, tax resisters and businesspeople who made the mistake of violating arcane regulations. Nevertheless, justice is sometimes served, and the myth prevails. There are good reasons why it must prevail. In a civil society, the myth of justice serves two related -- if contradictory -- purposes. On one hand, ordinary people need the myth to give them hope against the powerful. On the other, the powerful require ordinary people to believe in the myth because it keeps the rabble complacent. A belief in justice -- even an erroneous belief -- can be the line that separates gentility from riots in the streets. Even in these days of cynicism, there has still existed a flame of optimism about the power of ordinary people in the courtroom. The belief is so strong that some advocates of limited government have built their main hope upon it. The constitutionalists -- loosely, the legal researchers, sovereign citizens and pro se litigants who seek to limit the influence of government -- have spent endless hours and endless dollars building cases for, and on, the law. These hopeful Good Citizens have cherished the belief that they could go into court, present their arguments and (if those arguments proved intellectually, historically and constitutionally correct) prevail against institutionalized injustice. Not only prevail, personally, but return America to a land of limited government and individual rights. With that hope, and armed with reams of legal documents, many have besieged courts and other government agencies. Some of their arguments have been bogus. Some undeniably correct. A few have won the day. Most have been futile. A Change in the Tide Recently, a tiny time bomb landed in my e-mail box. In one sense, there was nothing new about it; some of us radical anti-government curmudgeons have been shouting a similar message for years. But given the source, it was revolutionary.[Note 1] Headed "Citizen Soldiers," the message said, in part: I have just returned from a meeting with a true constitutionalist attorney here in town, one with past and quite recent important victories in the area of tax issues....Basically, he intimated we as Americans must finally realize there is no such thing as an unassailable constitutional protection in this republic anymore. =2E...Face it, we're on our own; there is not and CAN NEVER BE any 'silver bullet.' So what's new, you ask? Check the endless well reasoned posts on this list, as well as the other lists many of you monitor. We know the law better than the DOJ, we have higher judicial scruples than the judges, and we're losing ground every day. In essence, we are fielding the GE College Bowl winners against the Gestapo. I have spent endless hours over the last five years studying and applying the law, contacting the IRS, my congressman...and the only difference it has made is that I understand PERFECTLY the gargantuan fraud this government (sic) is perpetrating on its citizens. The question arises: do I continue the futile? Within days, confirmations poured fourth. One came from attorney Steffan Bertsch of Lake Stevens, Washington, author of the book Crisis in Our Courts: I am sorry to admit that your writer is correct in that there is little or no law running the "justice" system; American justice has given way to ignorance, cowardice and corruption. =2E...Henry David Thoreau told us that if a law was immoral, that we as moral people must realize that we will not live long enough to change the immoral law by any democratic process and that we must realize that "if it [a law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." On Civil Disobedience. This advice is especially true today when Congress and state legislatures pass so many laws that lawyers cannot read the annual output and are forced to resort to reading summaries of statutes and regulations, hence are left vastly ignorant of the laws. American laws are so numerous that "ignorance of the law" should be made a defense=20 if a reasonable person would not know of the law.[Note 2] The essential point is, again, not the words, but the source. The last dogged proponents of "the system" are beginning to abandon hope. The justice system was the last legal avenue for these "little guys" and their principled attorneys.[Note 3] What has changed? Why are they abandoning it now when it never has been a perfect system? And, perhaps more important, what happens after they bail out? Why Now? The various justice-system reformers have seen some victories, some defeats. The record is inconclusive. But the very existence of these challengers threatens the security of the powers-that-be. Recently, those powers have been taking harsh steps to fight back: In a now-notorious case, political activist Laura Kriho of Colorado became the first American juror in more than 300 years put on trial after refusing to convict a defendant. She was, among other things, charged with perjury for failing to volunteer information about her past that she was never actually asked to give. In the Team Viper cases in Arizona (and many others) the judge refused to allow defendants to question the constitutionality of the laws they were charged with violating, even though the Supreme Court declared in one of its most famous cases: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" and have no force from the moment they are passed (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)). The judges shrug, "Take it up on appeal," knowing all the while that, by then, an innocent person may have spent years in prison and be bankrupt. Fearful of the power of minority opinions on juries, the state of Oregon changed its laws to enable conviction on an 11-1 vote. The U.S. Supreme Court decreed that states may authorize conviction on a 10-2 vote. In Albany, New York, a juror refused to convict a defendant in a drug case, saying the law under which the defendant was charged was wrong. Instead of declaring a mistrial, as has been done in the past, the judge simply fired the juror and granted the rest of the jury the spurious power to convict 11-0. In Washington, Republican state representative Karen Schmidt circulated a memo warning fellow members of government they might be "victims" of a type of "organized crime" committed by "extremists." Schmidt's newly defined crime, Paper Terrorism, is characterized primarily as an attempt to use the justice system to challenge the status quo: "Frivolous lawsuits against government entities"; challenging judges in court cases; "disrupting the court system by persuading fellow jail inmates to defend themselves..."; "distributing the extremist Citizens Handbook (sic) to foster jury nullification" and "requesting information from courts, government agencies, elected officials and businesses..." California, Indiana and other states soon followed suit. Legislatures and enforcement agencies are now actively prosecuting courtroom "terrorists." The Attack on the Jury An increasing number of judicial power plays involve attempts to curb jury nullification. Nullification is the historic, common-law practice by which jurors pass judgment on the law, as well as the facts of the case before them.[Note 4] Today, trial judges habitually inform jurors that they may deliberate on the facts only -- that they may never ask, "Is the law just?" or, "Is the law justly applied to this defendant?" Until the Kriho case, jury-rights activists (notably the Fully Informed Jury Association, FIJA[Note 5]) considered their position to be win-win; even if activists were arrested for telling jurors about nullification, or if jurors were charged for practicing it, the juries who tried their cases would -- voila! -- hear jury-rights arguments or see jury-rights literature presented in evidence. Naturally. How else could jurors gauge activists' actions? But under a recent Colorado law, defendants facing six months or less don't receive jury trials.[Note 6] Therefore, a judge and prosecutor got together and carefully structured charges against Kriho to ensure she would not have the benefit of a jury. Facing only a judge, whose power was directly threatened by her stand, Kriho naturally lost (although the judge's decision vindicated part of her position). But this was only one early, and highly visible, example of the attack on those who challenge the authority of judges and the will of prosecutors. The two cases cited at the top of this article are others. In the Washington State Militia case, what did the judge and prosecutors excise from the evidence? The jury-rights section of The Citizen's Rulebook. The attack on the jury extends across national borders, as well. In Canada, a juror in that country's longest and most expensive murder trial (Regina v. Bhudpinder Johal et al., Court File No. CC940998) now faces up to 10 years in prison for obstruction of justice. There is evidence the juror, Gillian Guess, behaved foolishly -- visiting several defendants and, after the verdict, forming a sexual relationship with one of them. However, she never received an order not to visit them, and there is no evidence she influenced the outcome of the trial. Why charge Guess? For one thing, the jury humiliated the prosecution -- finding every defendant not guilty in this highly publicized trial. But Guess was the only one who went on television afterward and declared that the government should never have brought "such flimsy charges" against the defendants. In previous cases of juror misconduct, judges have declared mistrials, or appeals courts have overturned guilty verdicts. But for 300 years, the independence of the jury has never been threatened, even by the angriest prosecutor or most dictatorial judge. Prosecuting jurors is a new trend whose danger as an intimidation tactic can't be overstated. There is, however, not only a trend to cow jurors into obedience, but to fill juries with those who are predisposed to obey orders. The process of voir dire was originally intended to screen out friends of either side or people with unshakable prejudices. However, it has become, as syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz and attorney Bertsch have both pointed out, a jury-stacking scheme. Jurors are grilled on their sex lives and the number of guns in their homes. (The very process screens out anyone with enough spine to refuse to answer outrageous questions.) In high-profile trials they are subject to private investigation and "management" by jury consultants, looking not for impartiality, but for desired forms of bias. If prospective jurors express knowledge of jury rights or hint that conscience might take precedence over authority, they're out. The truly independent-minded juror is automatically abolished from the panel. Thus, the news is filled with tales from jurors, who cry that they had "no choice but to convict," over the objections of their own conscience and common sense. In a notorious 1997 case, jurors emerged from deliberations weeping and demanding a governor's pardon for an 18-year-old boy they had just convicted of child molesting. His "crime" carried a horrifying mandatory sentence. Yet he had done nothing worse than get his 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant. Jurors recognized they had before them a normal teenager who, in fact, wanted to "do the right thing" and marry the girl. But the judge decreed his jurors could only judge the facts, not the fairness of the law. The jurors were, as the old Nazi claim goes, "only following orders." Swimming with Piranhas We have reached a point at which "the law is whatever I say it is" -- as long as the "I" in question is a judge or a prosecutor. Because the appeals system is populated by members of the same "club," the most outrageous injustices are often upheld. Those who dissent are like minnows among piranhas. Their earnest belief in the truth is no defense against a frenzy of carnivores. Yet, the piranhas fear the minnows -- or are at least determined to show the next little school of challengers not to mess with guys who have sharp teeth. Clearly many of the above judicial maneuverings are in response to the perceived threat posed by self-taught legal scholars and jury-rights activists. The problem is this: No matter why authorities maneuver to curb the power of juries and political dissidents, the effect of their power play can strike anyone. A judge may issue orders in defiance of FIJA, but it isn't FIJA who suffers when the jury convicts against its own conscience. It's the poor pot smoker, militia member or gun owner convicted of violating an unconscionable law. A judge may refuse to admit constitutional arguments to her courtroom out of frustration with "paper terrorists." And indeed the "terrorists" suffer and become more outraged. But the status of justice suffers worse. Even victories present dangers. When a FIJA activist or drug user goes free because of a hung jury, those momentary triumphs inspire courtroom crackdowns, revenge against jurors, and laws to further curtail jury power. Ultimately, the myth dies. Whether you're a constitutional scholar or a semi-literate kid, you know you won't get justice in the justice system. Remember, the justice system isn't the little guy's first hope. It's the last. What do you do when that hope is snuffed? The weary, but principled writer of "Citizen Soldiers" says: In my humble opinion, we should ALL be deciding on the level of civil disobedience we are willing to engage in. If this is the law, we should all become LAWBREAKERS, encourage others to become LAWBREAKERS, be steadfast on juries to free LAWBREAKERS, stand tall in the rightness of being LAWBREAKERS. But this cry of defiance sounds sweetly innocent when compared with what a less principled "little guy" is likely to do if he knows he can't get justice in the courts. As Vin Suprynowicz wrote, commenting upon the New York 11-0 verdict, which was partially supported by the Court of Appeals: The segment of the American populace who should be most concerned about the arrogant, elitist trend reflected by this New York appeals court ruling should be police officers. So far, when advising an armed suspect to "Give it up, and I'll see you get a jury trial," the average cop has had a fair chance of success. But once the average suspect realizes that government-salaried judges now can and will remove any juror who votes to acquit -- or who admits under questioning that he might favor a defendant's view of the law over the government's -- that suspect is far more likely to figure "I'm dead anyway, and I might as well take one lying government bureaucrat with me." The same is true of any form of court-rigging. Those who crave authority should understand that when they do anything to reduce the power of ordinary citizens in court -- whether jurors or defendants -- they do so at their own peril. The justice system serves as a safety valve on the overheated engine of society. Plug the valve and something explodes. Ultimately, prosecutors and judges who behave like tyrants in the courtroom will find that it isn't the little guy -- the demonized "paper terrorist," the jury-rights advocate, the pot smoker, the militia member, the drug entrepreneur or the errant juror -- who suffers the most dire consequences when the justice myth dies. No. When the powerful close the doors to justice -- and when common people understand that the doors are closed, we have one more place to turn: the streets. # # # 1.1 The message was posted anonymously to the ICE Internet list. The author copied it to me, under his own name. 2.Both Bertsch's essay and "Citizen Soldiers" can be read in full at Wolfe's Lodge http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110. 3.Yes, believe it or not "principled attorney" isn't always an oxymoron. 4.The 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. U.S. (also known as Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) firmly denounced this ancient right, citing more than 100 years of court precedents and legal opinion. Contrary to the mythology of the jury-rights movement, Sparf did not, in any way, uphold the concept that juries have a right to judge the law as well as the facts. However, a resounding dissent by Justice Gray traced jury nullification much farther back into history and showed that such a right did -- and does -- indeed exist. Even the elitist majority, which held that the judge is the sole arbiter of the law, conceded that, since jurors can vote any way they please, they effectively can nullify the law, whether or not anyone else approves. And this is exactly what juries have always done: Slavery and prohibition were, in part, ended by juries' refusal to convict runaway slaves, underground railroad operators and buyers and producers of alcohol. Three juries have refused to convict Dr. Jack Kevorkian, in part because they disagreed with the laws he was accused of breaking. In some areas, prosecutors are finding it increasingly difficult to convict drug users and dealers because juries simply won't deliver the desired verdicts. The Sparf decision can be found on the Internet.=20 Go to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html In the site's search engine, select the option "Supreme Court Cases 1893+." Then type "Sparf." 5.FIJA, P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843, (406) 793-5550, http://www.fija.org/. Prospective jurors call 1-800-TEL-JURY. Also see The Jury Rights Project, http://www.lrt.org/jrp.homepage.htm 6.The Colorado statute and similar statutes in other states are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights, Article VI, says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." =A9 1998 Claire Wolfe. This article may be reprinted for non-commercial purposes, as long as it is reprinted in full with no changes whatsoever, and is accompanied by this credit line. Partial or edited reprints may be made with written permission of the author. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Claire Wolfe: After the Fall of Justice (fwd) Date: 27 May 1998 08:10:31 PST On May 24, Mike**Schneider wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] AFTER THE FALL OF JUSTICE When Justice Leaves the Courtroom, Hope Turns Elsewhere This article was written for the Loompanics Unlimited summer 1998 catalog supplement. In Alaska, a demonstrator is charged with felony jury tampering for shouting, "Call 1-800-TEL-JURY!" within the hearing of jurors. Those who dial the number hear a recording that simply informs them they have a right to vote their conscience. In Washington state, a judge and three U.S. attorneys covertly excise key pages from a booklet before allowing it to be entered as defense evidence in the trial of several militia members. They are not charged with evidence tampering. Another day in the American court system. Justice, or its simulacrum, is dispensed as judges and prosecutors see fit. There's nothing new in that. What's new, or what's dangerously on the increase, is the systematic rigging of the court system to preserve judicial power and punish anyone who dares challenge it. And what's more important -- but clearly unforeseen by the riggers -- is the catastrophe likely to arise from this power grab. Myths and Hopes We cherish a myth that the justice system is the last, best hope for the beleaguered "little guy" in the world of the powerful. No matter what happens, we've been told, even the humblest of us can "have our day in court," be heard and be vindicated, as long as truth and fairness are on our side. This was never literally true, of course. Any poor, black man can tell you the reality of justice. The surviving, imprisoned Branch Davidians can tell you, as can the girlfriend of a drug dealer, locked away for years for sitting in a car during a transaction. Dozens of militiamen, set up by government informants, can tell you. As can dope smokers, tax resisters and businesspeople who made the mistake of violating arcane regulations. Nevertheless, justice is sometimes served, and the myth prevails. There are good reasons why it must prevail. In a civil society, the myth of justice serves two related -- if contradictory -- purposes. On one hand, ordinary people need the myth to give them hope against the powerful. On the other, the powerful require ordinary people to believe in the myth because it keeps the rabble complacent. A belief in justice -- even an erroneous belief -- can be the line that separates gentility from riots in the streets. Even in these days of cynicism, there has still existed a flame of optimism about the power of ordinary people in the courtroom. The belief is so strong that some advocates of limited government have built their main hope upon it. The constitutionalists -- loosely, the legal researchers, sovereign citizens and pro se litigants who seek to limit the influence of government -- have spent endless hours and endless dollars building cases for, and on, the law. These hopeful Good Citizens have cherished the belief that they could go into court, present their arguments and (if those arguments proved intellectually, historically and constitutionally correct) prevail against institutionalized injustice. Not only prevail, personally, but return America to a land of limited government and individual rights. With that hope, and armed with reams of legal documents, many have besieged courts and other government agencies. Some of their arguments have been bogus. Some undeniably correct. A few have won the day. Most have been futile. A Change in the Tide Recently, a tiny time bomb landed in my e-mail box. In one sense, there was nothing new about it; some of us radical anti-government curmudgeons have been shouting a similar message for years. But given the source, it was revolutionary.[Note 1] Headed "Citizen Soldiers," the message said, in part: I have just returned from a meeting with a true constitutionalist attorney here in town, one with past and quite recent important victories in the area of tax issues....Basically, he intimated we as Americans must finally realize there is no such thing as an unassailable constitutional protection in this republic anymore. .....Face it, we're on our own; there is not and CAN NEVER BE any 'silver bullet.' So what's new, you ask? Check the endless well reasoned posts on this list, as well as the other lists many of you monitor. We know the law better than the DOJ, we have higher judicial scruples than the judges, and we're losing ground every day. In essence, we are fielding the GE College Bowl winners against the Gestapo. I have spent endless hours over the last five years studying and applying the law, contacting the IRS, my congressman...and the only difference it has made is that I understand PERFECTLY the gargantuan fraud this government (sic) is perpetrating on its citizens. The question arises: do I continue the futile? Within days, confirmations poured fourth. One came from attorney Steffan Bertsch of Lake Stevens, Washington, author of the book Crisis in Our Courts: I am sorry to admit that your writer is correct in that there is little or no law running the "justice" system; American justice has given way to ignorance, cowardice and corruption. .....Henry David Thoreau told us that if a law was immoral, that we as moral people must realize that we will not live long enough to change the immoral law by any democratic process and that we must realize that "if it [a law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." On Civil Disobedience. This advice is especially true today when Congress and state legislatures pass so many laws that lawyers cannot read the annual output and are forced to resort to reading summaries of statutes and regulations, hence are left vastly ignorant of the laws. American laws are so numerous that "ignorance of the law" should be made a defense if a reasonable person would not know of the law.[Note 2] The essential point is, again, not the words, but the source. The last dogged proponents of "the system" are beginning to abandon hope. The justice system was the last legal avenue for these "little guys" and their principled attorneys.[Note 3] What has changed? Why are they abandoning it now when it never has been a perfect system? And, perhaps more important, what happens after they bail out? Why Now? The various justice-system reformers have seen some victories, some defeats. The record is inconclusive. But the very existence of these challengers threatens the security of the powers-that-be. Recently, those powers have been taking harsh steps to fight back: In a now-notorious case, political activist Laura Kriho of Colorado became the first American juror in more than 300 years put on trial after refusing to convict a defendant. She was, among other things, charged with perjury for failing to volunteer information about her past that she was never actually asked to give. In the Team Viper cases in Arizona (and many others) the judge refused to allow defendants to question the constitutionality of the laws they were charged with violating, even though the Supreme Court declared in one of its most famous cases: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" and have no force from the moment they are passed (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)). The judges shrug, "Take it up on appeal," knowing all the while that, by then, an innocent person may have spent years in prison and be bankrupt. Fearful of the power of minority opinions on juries, the state of Oregon changed its laws to enable conviction on an 11-1 vote. The U.S. Supreme Court decreed that states may authorize conviction on a 10-2 vote. In Albany, New York, a juror refused to convict a defendant in a drug case, saying the law under which the defendant was charged was wrong. Instead of declaring a mistrial, as has been done in the past, the judge simply fired the juror and granted the rest of the jury the spurious power to convict 11-0. In Washington, Republican state representative Karen Schmidt circulated a memo warning fellow members of government they might be "victims" of a type of "organized crime" committed by "extremists." Schmidt's newly defined crime, Paper Terrorism, is characterized primarily as an attempt to use the justice system to challenge the status quo: "Frivolous lawsuits against government entities"; challenging judges in court cases; "disrupting the court system by persuading fellow jail inmates to defend themselves..."; "distributing the extremist Citizens Handbook (sic) to foster jury nullification" and "requesting information from courts, government agencies, elected officials and businesses..." California, Indiana and other states soon followed suit. Legislatures and enforcement agencies are now actively prosecuting courtroom "terrorists." The Attack on the Jury An increasing number of judicial power plays involve attempts to curb jury nullification. Nullification is the historic, common-law practice by which jurors pass judgment on the law, as well as the facts of the case before them.[Note 4] Today, trial judges habitually inform jurors that they may deliberate on the facts only -- that they may never ask, "Is the law just?" or, "Is the law justly applied to this defendant?" Until the Kriho case, jury-rights activists (notably the Fully Informed Jury Association, FIJA[Note 5]) considered their position to be win-win; even if activists were arrested for telling jurors about nullification, or if jurors were charged for practicing it, the juries who tried their cases would -- voila! -- hear jury-rights arguments or see jury-rights literature presented in evidence. Naturally. How else could jurors gauge activists' actions? But under a recent Colorado law, defendants facing six months or less don't receive jury trials.[Note 6] Therefore, a judge and prosecutor got together and carefully structured charges against Kriho to ensure she would not have the benefit of a jury. Facing only a judge, whose power was directly threatened by her stand, Kriho naturally lost (although the judge's decision vindicated part of her position). But this was only one early, and highly visible, example of the attack on those who challenge the authority of judges and the will of prosecutors. The two cases cited at the top of this article are others. In the Washington State Militia case, what did the judge and prosecutors excise from the evidence? The jury-rights section of The Citizen's Rulebook. The attack on the jury extends across national borders, as well. In Canada, a juror in that country's longest and most expensive murder trial (Regina v. Bhudpinder Johal et al., Court File No. CC940998) now faces up to 10 years in prison for obstruction of justice. There is evidence the juror, Gillian Guess, behaved foolishly -- visiting several defendants and, after the verdict, forming a sexual relationship with one of them. However, she never received an order not to visit them, and there is no evidence she influenced the outcome of the trial. Why charge Guess? For one thing, the jury humiliated the prosecution -- finding every defendant not guilty in this highly publicized trial. But Guess was the only one who went on television afterward and declared that the government should never have brought "such flimsy charges" against the defendants. In previous cases of juror misconduct, judges have declared mistrials, or appeals courts have overturned guilty verdicts. But for 300 years, the independence of the jury has never been threatened, even by the angriest prosecutor or most dictatorial judge. Prosecuting jurors is a new trend whose danger as an intimidation tactic can't be overstated. There is, however, not only a trend to cow jurors into obedience, but to fill juries with those who are predisposed to obey orders. The process of voir dire was originally intended to screen out friends of either side or people with unshakable prejudices. However, it has become, as syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz and attorney Bertsch have both pointed out, a jury-stacking scheme. Jurors are grilled on their sex lives and the number of guns in their homes. (The very process screens out anyone with enough spine to refuse to answer outrageous questions.) In high-profile trials they are subject to private investigation and "management" by jury consultants, looking not for impartiality, but for desired forms of bias. If prospective jurors express knowledge of jury rights or hint that conscience might take precedence over authority, they're out. The truly independent-minded juror is automatically abolished from the panel. Thus, the news is filled with tales from jurors, who cry that they had "no choice but to convict," over the objections of their own conscience and common sense. In a notorious 1997 case, jurors emerged from deliberations weeping and demanding a governor's pardon for an 18-year-old boy they had just convicted of child molesting. His "crime" carried a horrifying mandatory sentence. Yet he had done nothing worse than get his 15-year-old girlfriend pregnant. Jurors recognized they had before them a normal teenager who, in fact, wanted to "do the right thing" and marry the girl. But the judge decreed his jurors could only judge the facts, not the fairness of the law. The jurors were, as the old Nazi claim goes, "only following orders." Swimming with Piranhas We have reached a point at which "the law is whatever I say it is" -- as long as the "I" in question is a judge or a prosecutor. Because the appeals system is populated by members of the same "club," the most outrageous injustices are often upheld. Those who dissent are like minnows among piranhas. Their earnest belief in the truth is no defense against a frenzy of carnivores. Yet, the piranhas fear the minnows -- or are at least determined to show the next little school of challengers not to mess with guys who have sharp teeth. Clearly many of the above judicial maneuverings are in response to the perceived threat posed by self-taught legal scholars and jury-rights activists. The problem is this: No matter why authorities maneuver to curb the power of juries and political dissidents, the effect of their power play can strike anyone. A judge may issue orders in defiance of FIJA, but it isn't FIJA who suffers when the jury convicts against its own conscience. It's the poor pot smoker, militia member or gun owner convicted of violating an unconscionable law. A judge may refuse to admit constitutional arguments to her courtroom out of frustration with "paper terrorists." And indeed the "terrorists" suffer and become more outraged. But the status of justice suffers worse. Even victories present dangers. When a FIJA activist or drug user goes free because of a hung jury, those momentary triumphs inspire courtroom crackdowns, revenge against jurors, and laws to further curtail jury power. Ultimately, the myth dies. Whether you're a constitutional scholar or a semi-literate kid, you know you won't get justice in the justice system. Remember, the justice system isn't the little guy's first hope. It's the last. What do you do when that hope is snuffed? The weary, but principled writer of "Citizen Soldiers" says: In my humble opinion, we should ALL be deciding on the level of civil disobedience we are willing to engage in. If this is the law, we should all become LAWBREAKERS, encourage others to become LAWBREAKERS, be steadfast on juries to free LAWBREAKERS, stand tall in the rightness of being LAWBREAKERS. But this cry of defiance sounds sweetly innocent when compared with what a less principled "little guy" is likely to do if he knows he can't get justice in the courts. As Vin Suprynowicz wrote, commenting upon the New York 11-0 verdict, which was partially supported by the Court of Appeals: The segment of the American populace who should be most concerned about the arrogant, elitist trend reflected by this New York appeals court ruling should be police officers. So far, when advising an armed suspect to "Give it up, and I'll see you get a jury trial," the average cop has had a fair chance of success. But once the average suspect realizes that government-salaried judges now can and will remove any juror who votes to acquit -- or who admits under questioning that he might favor a defendant's view of the law over the government's -- that suspect is far more likely to figure "I'm dead anyway, and I might as well take one lying government bureaucrat with me." The same is true of any form of court-rigging. Those who crave authority should understand that when they do anything to reduce the power of ordinary citizens in court -- whether jurors or defendants -- they do so at their own peril. The justice system serves as a safety valve on the overheated engine of society. Plug the valve and something explodes. Ultimately, prosecutors and judges who behave like tyrants in the courtroom will find that it isn't the little guy -- the demonized "paper terrorist," the jury-rights advocate, the pot smoker, the militia member, the drug entrepreneur or the errant juror -- who suffers the most dire consequences when the justice myth dies. No. When the powerful close the doors to justice -- and when common people understand that the doors are closed, we have one more place to turn: the streets. # # # 1.1 The message was posted anonymously to the ICE Internet list. The author copied it to me, under his own name. 2.Both Bertsch's essay and "Citizen Soldiers" can be read in full at Wolfe's Lodge http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110. 3.Yes, believe it or not "principled attorney" isn't always an oxymoron. 4.The 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. U.S. (also known as Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) firmly denounced this ancient right, citing more than 100 years of court precedents and legal opinion. Contrary to the mythology of the jury-rights movement, Sparf did not, in any way, uphold the concept that juries have a right to judge the law as well as the facts. However, a resounding dissent by Justice Gray traced jury nullification much farther back into history and showed that such a right did -- and does -- indeed exist. Even the elitist majority, which held that the judge is the sole arbiter of the law, conceded that, since jurors can vote any way they please, they effectively can nullify the law, whether or not anyone else approves. And this is exactly what juries have always done: Slavery and prohibition were, in part, ended by juries' refusal to convict runaway slaves, underground railroad operators and buyers and producers of alcohol. Three juries have refused to convict Dr. Jack Kevorkian, in part because they disagreed with the laws he was accused of breaking. In some areas, prosecutors are finding it increasingly difficult to convict drug users and dealers because juries simply won't deliver the desired verdicts. The Sparf decision can be found on the Internet. Go to http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html In the site's search engine, select the option "Supreme Court Cases 1893+." Then type "Sparf." 5.FIJA, P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843, (406) 793-5550, http://www.fija.org/. Prospective jurors call 1-800-TEL-JURY. Also see The Jury Rights Project, http://www.lrt.org/jrp.homepage.htm 6.The Colorado statute and similar statutes in other states are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights, Article VI, says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." © 1998 Claire Wolfe. This article may be reprinted for non-commercial purposes, as long as it is reprinted in full with no changes whatsoever, and is accompanied by this credit line. Partial or edited reprints may be made with written permission of the author. To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you must replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS. -- Today's Political Definition -- Moderate: n. one too cowardly to steal in person, so he elects a proxy. Distinguised from those who steal overtly, and those who do not steal. [------------------------- 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: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER (fwd) Date: 27 May 1998 10:15:18 -0700 At 3:35 PM -0700 5/23/98, Boyd Kneeland wrote: >What bank was the check drawn on?? By golly, I'm glad you asked that Boyd : ) see note below >I think it's a hard case in todays world to argue that presenting checks on snip see note below >If on the other hand, this was a first union check written by a first union >customer to a non first union recipient (our guy) then the whole thing is >even scarier. snip -----------note below----------- Today I (very quickly) got a reply from Patrick Poole indicating that this was a 1st Union check. (I'm stifling the urge to contract the banks name to it's initials) S o o,... I'll reiterate that I think it's pretty, well, dim, to argue contract law with a teller. It's a bit like walking up to a McDonalds employee and sharing the methodology of the latest research on free radicals (I'm not talking gun owners here ; ). But it sure as hell ain't cause to be arrested IMNSDHO. The incident alledgedly took place in the Dutch Square branch in Columbia SC. Once I've gotten phone numbers and info from the branch, PD and DA I'll inflict those on the list (busy day, probly later). I also asked Patrick if there was a trust or legal defense fund set up. Boyd Kneeland, CLAW pres. (any opinions expressed are mine alone) >Boyd (I do not argue contract law with bank tellers) Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: 1st Union/Poole Details Date: 27 May 1998 10:27:54 -0700 Let me start with a disclaimer of sorts, IMO the beef here is with Bank policy. Had it been me, having previously faced this problem with 1st U., I would've politely informed my customer that 1st Union had unreasonable requirements for paying out checks and would he/she kindly pay me in a different manner. That said, everything that happened to this poor sod at the bank is wrong wrong wrong IMNSDHO and anybody who gives a hoot about civil rights (looks like we'll see if that includes SC ACLU) ought to be jumping -all- over the Columbia SC Police Dept., and DA IMO. Boyd Kneeland (all opinions expressed by me are mine alone). PS, can someone confirm SC has no law requiring prints? That's a pivotal point (If they do, all y'all ought to be spiking it) IMO. =46rom: Patrick Poole X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 =46eel free to send it out. I spoke with the President of the SC ACLU, and they are considering taking up the case. You may want to contact Leigh Heflin (who sent me the info) at: mailto:HighV@aol.com for more information and updates about the case. Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyd Kneeland [SMTP:boyd@seanet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 1:03 PM > To: Patrick Poole > Subject: RE: Fratrum: Fw: [FP] FW: FIRST UNION BANK ROBS CUSTOMER > (fwd) > > Thank you for your rapid reply. If you have any information > about a trust or legal defense fund please send it to me > and I will fwd to lists in Washington. > > May I forward the text of the html you sent me, or would > you prefer I keep that private? Boyd Text of Patricks original message to me (boyd): Lee, the rest of the story!!!! Steve=8A=8A=8A, 29=8Aa tree-surgeon and self-employed Contractor, worked a= full day for a customer with whom he had a CONTRACT. Steve received the customers check as payment in full for the work he had completed, in the amount of $300. Since the check was drawn on the customer's account at First Union Bank, Steve went to a First Union Bank branch at Dutch Square, Columbia, SC at 5:45 P.M. on May 15, 1998, to cash check at customer's bank, having been assured by the customer that the check was good. Steve presented the check AND his driver's license for identification to a teller. Steve was informed by the teller he must give his thumbprint in order to have the check cashed. Steve requested the teller call the customer to verify that Steve was given the check by the customer; (name and phone number on the check). The teller refused to do so. Steve asked to speak to the "head teller"; to explain he had been through this before=8Athat the request to call customer had been carried out and check cashed. Steve was told no, by the 'Head Teller' " I will not honor this check". Steve asked to speak to bank manager. The Branch Manager, Ms. Melsen INVITED Steve into her office and pointed to a plaque on the desk stating no checks cashed for non-account holders without fingerprint. Steve explained to the Branch Manager, that the plaque was a simply a "sign" that did not explain the law. Steve asked the Branch Manager to please give him a copy of the law. The Branch Manager said it was a bank policy and she did not know where the law was filed. Steve pointed to her Banking Manual and said it must be in there. The bank manager and teller began looking for the policy. At that point in time another teller walked into the office, and said "never - mind, Richland County is on the way". It is apparent that the police had been called WITHOUT Steve's knowledge or any warning given to Steve that Steve was doing anything wrong. It is important to note that at no time was Steve requested to leave the ban= k. Steve asked to make a phone call, was given permission to do so, by the Branch Manager. Steve was in the process of making the phone call when 3 Richland County Sheriff 's deputies (?) came in the building and motioned to Steve to come outside. Steve told them he was not resisting, but wanted to complete his phone call. [His wife and two of his small children were in the parking lot in their van - but he did not know where they were and what was going on]. He again said he needed to make a phone call. One of the Deputies asked teller if he had been given permission to call and she replied in the affirmative. One of the Deputies said, "I don't think so", forcibly removed the phone from Steve's hand, and two deputies pushed him out of the bank. The deputies told Steve he had 3 seconds to leave the premises. Seeing his wife and children were not in the van and he did not know where they were, Steve told the Deputies he could not leave without them. One of the Deputies repeated the 3 second warning. Steve then said he would leave the premises after the deputies identified themselves. He requested their names. Steve repeated his request to find his wife and identification from them, whereupon the Deputies immediately arrested and cuffed Steve; put him in a Sheriff's Patrol car. One of the deputies shoved his card in his pocket. Another removed the card and wrote his name on the back. The third never identified himself. Steve had no idea what to do next; has never been arrested for anything, and told them so. The response Steve got from the Deputies was a laugh=8A. One question was asked of Steve, on the way to the detention center,--- what is your SSN #. When he replied he did not know if he was supposed to talk to them or answer questions, the remark was made by the Deputies - "you just want to make it hard on yourself, don't you". Steve spent the night in jail, was released the next day (in a closed bond hearing, without assistance of counsel or any witnesses allowed to be present) on $1000 PR bond. The charge was "trespass after notice". [Criminal offense] Remember! Steve was never noticed, or asked by the BANK to leave. The Arrest report states "Victim 1" is Bank Manager. [No bank manager's signature on complaint.] Hearing June 23. *The officers report implies he overheard the disturbance, that Steve was uncooperative and disruptive, even on way to detention center, none of which is true. Additional info and similar incident: On May 19, 1998, Steve's brother, Scott, received a check written to him for work from a customer, with whom he had a CONTRACT. Check written on Nation's bank account. Scott told her that Nation's bank would not cash her check, as he, Scott, did not have an account there. His customer insisted they would and said to have Nation's Bank call her to verify the check. Scott went to the Nation's Bank closest to his customers home, and was told by the teller when he attempted to cash the check, his thumbprint must be placed on the check. Scott asked the teller to call his customer to verify the check, which she did. Nation's Bank teller told the account holder (check writer), the bank would not cash the check without Scott's fingerprint, or she could come in, cash the check, and give Scott the money. The account holder said she did not bank that way. Scott left, without check being cashed. The first incident occurred in Richland County, South Carolina; as did the second. The Reporter of this story knows both men, personally, and has read subsequent report from deputy. [ there is no SC State or Congressional Law mandating thumbprints. Only bank policy - not law} Information on actions soon to commence are withheld at this time in order not to jeopardize legal procedures being taken. Will be forthcoming in the future for those interested. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Date: 27 May 1998 13:00:37 -0700 Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Dr. Laura Schlessinger 5/21/98 I have something I think is very important to say. This seems kind of stupid because, frankly, every time I open my mouth I'm trying to be important. But I think you better listen up. It's one of those situations where when you look at a unique event, one raindrop falling from the heavens, you go, "It's a unique experience." If you stand back and see that there are 40 million scrillion raindrops falling from the heavens with a big wind behind them, you have a whole different perspective. When you stand back and look at the whole of it, you see you're in a hurricane and the top of your house just went. So perspective is everything. So sometimes when you just look at each event, define it and put it away, you can feel very safe, but you're not. You better stand back and see that it's one raindrop in a hurricane. On my way to work today, I heard about the student in the public high school in Oregon, killed his parents and his sister, somebody else at school, and a score or two of other children are seriously hurt. If you look at each one of these events, kids doing drive-by shootings. Just take one event in the newspaper on one day, you go, "Bad kid." Shooting each other in schools. Isolated event. Bad kid. Kids committing suicide at rates unknown in modern times. Well, listening to bad music. Kids having babies at 11 and 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 and 16, and killing them, or wrapping them up in a towel and burying them in the earth, or flushing them down a toilet. It's an isolated event. The kids on drugs and alcohol at levels I never heard of when I was a kid. If somebody sneaked a beer, and it wasn't me because I couldn't even stand the smell. But if somebody sneaked a beer, that was a big deal. And if you listen to this program at all, you can tell that there are very few parents out there who feel any sense of authority with their children. The children rule. So if you stand back and look at all of these things, not as an isolated raindrop, you see an apocalypse. And I am really dead serious about this, and it would seem lately, more and more, dead is the operative term. I perceive this as the ultimate in backlash and revenge of the children brought up by a generation who invented a whole new way of life. New and improved way of life. And these are the improvements. Commitment is temporary. We've redefined it. There are even books out called A Good Divorce. We've got people shacking up, making babies, moving on, making babies, moving on, not seeing their kids, moving away. Judges saying, "Not a problem. You want to move your kids away from their dad? Honey babe, you deserve to be happy. Screw the kid." Got women living with guys they're not married to who are molesting their children, at much higher rates than marital situations by far. We have daycare. That's new and improved. Women have the right to abandon their children, and their children will be happy about it as long as the mommies are happy. Whose moronic idea is that? Abortion is commonplace. You get pregnant, you don't want it, you suck it into a sink. No problem. It's not a person. You don't think all this mentality gives a complete irreverence for life? How do children feel important when they're not? Whether you stay married. Whether you are married. It's all unimportant. The children don't matter. It's your happiness. So we have chaos in the home. We have, therefore, chaos in society. My children are not safe from your children any more. These are not isolated raindrops. And the best, the best new and improved idea in our society is to remove God as an issue in the family, so that all holidays we now have magazines and news articles extolling the virtues of interfaith-less marriages, where we eat a little matzo and paint a few eggs and call it a holiday. It is so cute! It's adorable! See how tolerant we are? But you better keep God out of the holiday. But as long as we have a little matzo and a little eggs that we can paint, we think we've brought God to our kids and our lives. We've more and more become unwilling to study, to pray, to observe because, you know why? It's time consuming and annoying and it's not really necessary anyway. The most important thing is my fulfillment. Damn backwards! Damn backwards! So generation provided this chaos, lack of home, lack of parents, lack of family, lack of stability, lack of reverence for life, lack of God, and we have a big hurricane. Now I was on Meet the Press and something else when other kids killed in other schools and I don't think anybody heard me clearly. Maybe I said it too tactfully, so I'm going to be a little less tactful now. This is a lab experiment that failed! We've created international Lord of the Flies. Kids have no respect for life. They know they're not important. They don't see any purpose. They don't see any security. They don't ultimately see any love because we have no time and no interest in anything but acquisition. That's what's important. Character, fidelity, stability, the preciousness of life, God - these are not relevant as long as the economy is okay. Isn't that indicative of "we don't care"? I am not the slightest bit surprised, although I am beyond myself in grief for the parents who are losing children this way. I mean I can't imagine the pain of sending your kid to school and having this happen. Even having the threat of it. But our kids are going to continue to do drive-bys, to blow away mass murder in school, to kill themselves, to make babies, kill them and abandon them and abuse them, be on drugs, be on alcohol and scare the crap out of you and everybody else and each other because we taught them that they don't matter and nothing else does. This is the revenge for our new order. You still want to argue with me? How foolish can you be? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cyrano Subject: [Fwd: Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings] Date: 27 May 1998 13:53:38 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------763FE41FD3ADEF011483478B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Steve Silver Proud Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy & Vice President, The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329, Encino, CA 91316 * (818) 734-3066 For a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, "The Liberty Pole," e-mail your snail-mail address to: LSAS3@aol.com The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation * * * Self defense is not a crime. Firearms: They save lives. --------------763FE41FD3ADEF011483478B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from lists.xmission.com (lists.xmission.com [198.60.22.7]) by ixmail3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with SMTP id NAA04147; ; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yemeb-0000Vo-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:18:29 -0600 Received: from (mail.xmission.com) [198.60.22.22] by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0yemeQ-0000RC-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:18:18 -0600 Received: from (med3.minerva.com) [192.88.236.16] by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yemXw-0006j9-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:11:36 -0600 Received: from minerva.com by med3.minerva.com ; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:17 PST Received: from barak ([199.172.23.2]) by avatar.minerva.com (sFSRV.0b0 10/22/97) with SMTP id 000118Y; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:10:40 -0700 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:00:38 -0700 Message-ID: <01BD896F.720EA720.Jack@minerva.com> Organization: Athena Programming X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Dr. Laura Schlessinger 5/21/98 I have something I think is very important to say. This seems kind of stupid because, frankly, every time I open my mouth I'm trying to be important. But I think you better listen up. It's one of those situations where when you look at a unique event, one raindrop falling from the heavens, you go, "It's a unique experience." If you stand back and see that there are 40 million scrillion raindrops falling from the heavens with a big wind behind them, you have a whole different perspective. When you stand back and look at the whole of it, you see you're in a hurricane and the top of your house just went. So perspective is everything. So sometimes when you just look at each event, define it and put it away, you can feel very safe, but you're not. You better stand back and see that it's one raindrop in a hurricane. On my way to work today, I heard about the student in the public high school in Oregon, killed his parents and his sister, somebody else at school, and a score or two of other children are seriously hurt. If you look at each one of these events, kids doing drive-by shootings. Just take one event in the newspaper on one day, you go, "Bad kid." Shooting each other in schools. Isolated event. Bad kid. Kids committing suicide at rates unknown in modern times. Well, listening to bad music. Kids having babies at 11 and 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 and 16, and killing them, or wrapping them up in a towel and burying them in the earth, or flushing them down a toilet. It's an isolated event. The kids on drugs and alcohol at levels I never heard of when I was a kid. If somebody sneaked a beer, and it wasn't me because I couldn't even stand the smell. But if somebody sneaked a beer, that was a big deal. And if you listen to this program at all, you can tell that there are very few parents out there who feel any sense of authority with their children. The children rule. So if you stand back and look at all of these things, not as an isolated raindrop, you see an apocalypse. And I am really dead serious about this, and it would seem lately, more and more, dead is the operative term. I perceive this as the ultimate in backlash and revenge of the children brought up by a generation who invented a whole new way of life. New and improved way of life. And these are the improvements. Commitment is temporary. We've redefined it. There are even books out called A Good Divorce. We've got people shacking up, making babies, moving on, making babies, moving on, not seeing their kids, moving away. Judges saying, "Not a problem. You want to move your kids away from their dad? Honey babe, you deserve to be happy. Screw the kid." Got women living with guys they're not married to who are molesting their children, at much higher rates than marital situations by far. We have daycare. That's new and improved. Women have the right to abandon their children, and their children will be happy about it as long as the mommies are happy. Whose moronic idea is that? Abortion is commonplace. You get pregnant, you don't want it, you suck it into a sink. No problem. It's not a person. You don't think all this mentality gives a complete irreverence for life? How do children feel important when they're not? Whether you stay married. Whether you are married. It's all unimportant. The children don't matter. It's your happiness. So we have chaos in the home. We have, therefore, chaos in society. My children are not safe from your children any more. These are not isolated raindrops. And the best, the best new and improved idea in our society is to remove God as an issue in the family, so that all holidays we now have magazines and news articles extolling the virtues of interfaith-less marriages, where we eat a little matzo and paint a few eggs and call it a holiday. It is so cute! It's adorable! See how tolerant we are? But you better keep God out of the holiday. But as long as we have a little matzo and a little eggs that we can paint, we think we've brought God to our kids and our lives. We've more and more become unwilling to study, to pray, to observe because, you know why? It's time consuming and annoying and it's not really necessary anyway. The most important thing is my fulfillment. Damn backwards! Damn backwards! So generation provided this chaos, lack of home, lack of parents, lack of family, lack of stability, lack of reverence for life, lack of God, and we have a big hurricane. Now I was on Meet the Press and something else when other kids killed in other schools and I don't think anybody heard me clearly. Maybe I said it too tactfully, so I'm going to be a little less tactful now. This is a lab experiment that failed! We've created international Lord of the Flies. Kids have no respect for life. They know they're not important. They don't see any purpose. They don't see any security. They don't ultimately see any love because we have no time and no interest in anything but acquisition. That's what's important. Character, fidelity, stability, the preciousness of life, God - these are not relevant as long as the economy is okay. Isn't that indicative of "we don't care"? I am not the slightest bit surprised, although I am beyond myself in grief for the parents who are losing children this way. I mean I can't imagine the pain of sending your kid to school and having this happen. Even having the threat of it. But our kids are going to continue to do drive-bys, to blow away mass murder in school, to kill themselves, to make babies, kill them and abandon them and abuse them, be on drugs, be on alcohol and scare the crap out of you and everybody else and each other because we taught them that they don't matter and nothing else does. This is the revenge for our new order. You still want to argue with me? How foolish can you be? - --------------763FE41FD3ADEF011483478B-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Date: 27 May 1998 17:32:48 -0400 (EDT) I think that Dr. Laura's comments are largely correct. There are a lot of kids being raised irresponsibly, a lot of kids who are hurting in many respects, a lot of kids without moral anchor. I do think that it is possible to exaggerate the problem, as many kids are being raised very well, or at least moderately well. First observations: If, say, 8% of kids are involved in violent or self-destructive behaviour, whereas this was formerly 2%, the impact on society as a whole is enormous. Second observation: Kids today watch an amazing amount of violence, that is more graphic, more omnipresent, and more disturbing than it was 30 years ago. Ask anyone in their 40's about what was available on TV (4 channels only) and at the movies. Anyone heard of the violence increases in South Africa after the introduction of TV? There is some sound social science on this - TV and movies are very big business and they don't want to hear it. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: A Letter to Us from the Future (fwd) Date: 28 May 1998 00:12:35 PST On May 27, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The United Socialist States of North America - November, 1999 Dear friend: It is late November, 1999. Things are very different now in the United Socialist States Of North America, formerly the USA.It's freezing outside, and not much better inside, since the EPA ordered most of the power plants shut down a few years ago. We have lots of trees around here, so we'll make it through the winter alright, I guess.Good thing I saved up lots of canned food; the grocery stores stay empty most of the time these days, what with the government run farms that can't produce enough, and the constant truckers' strikes. Some food shipments are even being hijacked. Lots of folk have died of starvation and disease recently; and remember that health care plan they passed in '96? What a joke - you could die of old age standing in line. Most hospitals had to close, and few folks can afford to drive to Memphis with gas at $3.85 a gallon, thanks to the big Eco- Summit in '96 that tripled the price of fuel to raise money for the new Environmental Police Force. Those are the guys in the green helmets, they carry guns too. I remember how controversial that NAFTA treaty was before they passed it, and now I understand why so many fought it so hard. You see, we don't produce much here anymore, and with a primarily service oriented economy, we lost our standard of living and are now just like one big underclass.Of course the government bureaucrats still live on easy street, but nobody says too much about that kind of thing anymore; I mean after they took over the radio stations and most of the newspaper companies were bought out by the government, the news is mostly world events, and we really can't tell what is happening in the USSNA.All of the last conservative columnists and talk show hosts were imprisoned in late '96; rumor has it some were executed in detention camps out west, but we can't be sure. I remember a small handful of preachers that always tried to warn us about the possibility of all of this happening, but they were gradually railroaded out of the main-line churches for upsetting the people too much. Now, it seems they were right, but they too, are all gone. We don't go out much anymore, the constant roadblocks and the vehicle searches make just going to the store a frightening experience, for the children especially. The U.N. soldiers are everywhere; you see after they suspended the Constitution back in '97, the old U.S. Army was merged with the U.N. units, and now we can't tell who the Americans are anymore. I guess it really doesn't matter, they court martialed most of our troops who resisted the merger, so everyone in blue these days is part of the North American Occupation Force one way or the other. Many people formed small militia groups in the summer of '98, but it was already too late. They put up one heck of a fight, especially down South, but there just weren't enough of them. You see, when the Brady Bill passed, nobody took it seriously. Then came the Crime Bill of '94. The Patriots tried to sound the alarm back then, but not enough people called their Congressmen.... it passed also. Next was the assault weapons ban. This one had significant opposition, but at the last, even the pro-Second Amendment politicians caved in and allowed the bill to pass, helped greatly by the socialist media's lengthy propaganda blitz. By the time enough people understood what was really going on, they had already passed Brady II, which made every house with a gun subject to random government searches.Thousands of homes were assaulted in late '97, and the government forces killed so many private citizens, the population had to make a choice... disarm or die. Most people then gave up their guns to keep from being killed or imprisoned. I remember that deal back in '93 at Waco, Texas. I didn't want to believe our government was really capable of mass-murder, but looking back on it, Waco was just a test, to see how much the people would put up with. I guess we failed the test; soon after Waco, they started raiding churches, patriotic meetings, and religious groups all over the country.If only we had listened to those who tried so hard to warn us back then. And you know, all of that New World Order stuff has come true, and I fear it's not over yet. I don't know what we can do though, all private meetings are outlawed, we have no guns, and folk are too scared to even discuss the new government. I would now give anything, to be able to go back ten years; back when we could speak, write, preach, and assemble together for the good of the nation; if only we had gotten involved while we were still free. Well, I better close for now; the night security forces will be making their rounds, and you know I could be beaten and imprisoned for writing an unauthorized letter. I'll get it to the underground postal service when it's safe again. A complacent citizen,If only I had done.... something.... for freedom... "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."Psalm 137:1.... it doesn't have to end this way... the choice is ours.We stand for Liberty now...Or we serve under Tyranny! Brad Peterson, Chaplain - E Pluribus Unum [------------------------- 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: The Looting of America (fwd) Date: 28 May 1998 00:13:21 PST On May 27, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The Looting of America How over 200 Civil Asset Forfeiture laws enable police to confiscate your home, bank accounts & business without trial. by Jarret Wollstein `A police dog scratched at your luggage, so we're confiscating your life savings and you'll never get it back.' In 1989, police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back. Ethel Hylton is just one of a large and growing list of Americans -- now numbering in the hundreds of thousands -- who have been victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, everything you own can be legally taken away even if you are never indicted, tried or convicted of a crime. Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back. Property is now being seized in every state and from every class of Americans. Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples: -- In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry". Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments. "Resident Ben Davis calls it `robbery with a badge'."[USA Today, 5/18/92] -- In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car -- specially equipped for her handicapped daughter -- seized as the `getaway vehicle'." [USA Today, 5/18/92] -- In December 1988, Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue. -- In April 1992, Dr. Joseph Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counselling services from a spare bedroom in his mother's house in Monmouth, New Jersey. Counselling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn't stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother's home, totalling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs. -- Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors' porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation. The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son. The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize property and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments", and sell the rest. How extensive are seizures in America today? In April 1990, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, homes and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management. Asset forfeiture is th industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991. In 1992, seizures may exceed $1 billion. Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your "guilty" property. If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Count has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy. Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or the federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property's "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it. You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property. To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees -- ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 -- out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted". And you may be forced to go through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn't apply. Once property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees -- with no guarantee of winning -- while the government keeps your car, home and bank account. As bad as current asset forfeiture laws are, far worse is just ahead. Hundreds of expanded asset forfeiture bills are pending before Congress and state legislatures. The 1991 Omnibus Crime Bill (passed by Congress, but vetoed by President Bush for being "too soft" on crime), increases from six months to six-and-one-half years the time officials have to return "improperly seized" property to its rightful owners. The 1992 Omnibus Crime Bill extends civil asset forfeiture to political dissent. Under this Bill, if "violence" occurs during a political activity, the assets of the sponsoring organization are subject to forfeiture. If a fist fight broke out during a union picket, all of the union's assets could be seized. Even before this Bill has passed, cars belonging to Operation Rescue demonstrators are being confiscated. Civil asset forfeiture is the beginning of the end of justice in America. Current and pending laws give government agencies the legal right to loot at will. The threat of asset forfeiture can be used to intimidate businesses, silence dissent, and destroy families. Some people are fighting back. A New Jersey-based group, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR), is lobbying Congress and creating a national network of forfeiture defense attorneys. The Drug Policy Foundation and the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation (both based in Washington, D.C.) are fighting existing and proposed asset forfeiture laws. These groups need your help to succeed. The fight against civil asset forfeiture is a battle against tyranny in America. If forfeiture squads continue to expand, liberty and justice in America will become a fading memory. We must stop government looters and restore the rule of law now. Tomorrow will be too late. Jarret B. Wollstein is a director of ISIL and the author of 300 published articles. GROUPS FIGHTING ASSET FORFEITURE Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, 2000 L Street, NW, Suite 702, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 835-9075. $90 per year. Drug Policy Foundation, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20016 (202)895-1634. $35 per year. Families Against Mandatory Minimums, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20004. (202) 457-5790. $35 per year. FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights), P.O. Box 5424, Somerset, NJ 08875 Tel: (908) 873-1251. $55 per year. RECOMMENDED READING The Closing Door by Dan Rosenthal ........................... $30.00 Presumed Guilty by Schneider/Flaherty ....................... $6.00 Spectre of Forfeiture by Judy Osburn ........................ $14.95 For these and other books and tapes write: Freedom's Forum Books, 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102. Add $2.50 P & H for 1st book and $1.00 for each additional item. Attractive two-color hard copies of this pamphlet are available for 5 cents each (minimum order $1.00). Price includes shipping. This pamphlet is produced as a public service by the International Society for Individual Liberty. If you would like to receive free literature about ISIL's activities around the world, and receive a sample copy of the FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS newsletter and book catalog, please write: INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 Tel: (415) 864-0952 Fax: (415) 864-7506 [------------------------- 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: Cyrano Subject: Fong calls Issa an "Extremist" for supporting right of self-defense Date: 28 May 1998 12:14:13 -0700 I just got off the telephone with Jason Miller at the Issa for U.S. Senate campaign headquarters (11 a.m. on Thursday, 5/28/98). Jason told me Darrell Issa is debating Matt Fong, his opponent for the Republican nomination, in the bay area. During the debate, Fong reportedly called Issa an =93extremist=94 due to = his support of the Second Amendment and the right to self defense. Fong also came out in favor of the Brady Law, the so-called assault weapon ban and the ban on =93Saturday night specials.=94 He also made the absurd suggestion that stricter gun contro= l would end the type of tragedies which recently occurred in Springfield, OR, and Jonesboro, AR. Fong has refused to sign the =93Pre-Oath of Office=94 prepared by The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. The =93Pre-Oath=94 is a written promise by the candidate stating that, if elected, he will not vote to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Darrell Issa signed the =93Pre-Oath,=94 as have Susan Brooks (36th U.S. Congressional District), Ollie McCaulley (State Senate candidate) and others. Fong finally came off the fence, and we now see what side he's on. A candidate who does not support the right to self-defense, and who believes a person who supports the Bill of Rights is an =93extremist,=94 does not deserve to be in public office. A candidate who would use the blood of innocent children to boost his campaign prospects is beneath contempt. The winner will face incumbent Barbara Boxer. Sen. Boxer has a well-established history of opposing the right to self-defense and opposing the Second Amendment. Her solution to violent crime is to disarm the victim. Matt Fong is no better. A race between Boxer and Fong would be no race at all. I therefore urge everyone, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for Darrell Issa. -- Steve Silver Proud Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy & Vice President, The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329, Encino, CA 91316 * (818) 734-3066 For a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, "The Liberty Pole," e-mail your snail-mail address to: LSAS3@aol.com The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation * * * Self defense is not a crime. Firearms: They save lives. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Taste Massage Date: 28 May 1998 22:30:36 PST Tasting, tasting, one, two, three, tasting...... This has been a taste, _only_ an taste, of the tastefully tastefull xpresso boredcasting system.....:-) -- ***** 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: tm Subject: Re: Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings Date: 28 May 1998 07:17:47 -0400 At 01:00 PM 5/27/98 -0700, you wrote: >Dr Laura's monologue on the Oregon Shootings >Dr. Laura Schlessinger >5/21/98 Thanks Jack, I needed to read that... Tanya > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Nation needs to fix its moral compus Date: 29 May 1998 08:26:43 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Nation needs to fix its broken moral compass, study group says Copyright =A9 1998 The Associated Press=20 NEW YORK (May 28, 1998 08:50 a.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -- Americans can reset the nation's broken moral compass through actions as diverse as turning off their televisions and reforming the tax code, according to a report issued Wednesday by a 24-member non-partisan panel. The politicians, clergy, academics and activists who wrote "A Call to Civil Society: Why Democracy Needs Moral Truths," say Americans must find a way to agree on a public moral philosophy if democracy is to survive. "If independent moral truth does not exist, all that is left is power," says the report. "Such a view of reality is, among other things, antithetical to the western ideal of human freedom. In the long run, it is likely to prove fatal to the project of republican self-governance." Among those who served on the Council on Civil Society, which took two years to craft the 30-page report, are: U.S. Sens. Dan Coats, R-Ind., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., academics Francis Fukuyama, Cornel West and John J. DiIulio, public opinion analyst Daniel Yankelovich and Boston pastor Ray Hammond. The group was chaired by Jean Bethke Elshtain of the University of Chicago Divinity School.=20 The report's recommendations include strengthening obstacles to divorce and reforming the tax code to provide financial incentives to couples who stay married. It calls on television broadcasters to police themselves by readopting the 8-9 p.m. "family hour" and on Americans to turn off their TVs one week a= year. Religious institutions are urged to reassert themselves into American life, while the Supreme Court is chided for trying to create "a society sanitized of public religious influence." Government is urged to embrace charter schools and school choice, and end state sponsorship of lottery games, which "purvey a counter-civics ethic of escapism and false hope." Without such changes, America is doomed to continue a long-term moral decline that 67 percent of the public already believes is well under way, the report says. "As our social morality deteriorates, life becomes harsher and less civil for everyone, social problems multiply and we lose the confidence that we as Americans are united by shared values," the panel writes. As evidence of the spread of uncivil behavior, the report cites baseball star Roberto Alomar spitting in the face of an umpire, pop star Madonna announcing she wants to have a baby but not a husband, and political consultant Dick Morris going straight from a prostitution scandal to a lucrative book contract. Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith attended a symposium held in conjunction with the report's release and said he appreciated the emphasis on voluntary civic action. He said many needed changes are beyond government's reach. "We have by all standards an enormously successful city," Goldsmith said. "Yet we still have large numbers of young people having babies, of school dropouts. No amount of mayoral huffing and puffing is going to solve that." The head of the Institute for American Values, which issued the report, said the panel struggled over how to call for a moral revival. "Democracy's dependence on moral truth was the single most contentious issue," said David Blankenhorn, whose group issued the report with the University of Chicago Divinity School.=20 Such a claim, Blankenhorn added, "is almost taboo within the academy," where a pragmatic, rights-based view of democracy holds sway. Elshtain said panelists agreed that moral truths exist, but argued over whether such truths are theological or secular. Ultimately, the panel adopted the "natural theology" of the nation's founding fathers, who enshrined in the Constitution the belief that, as the report says, "people ... possess transcendent human dignity, and that consequently each person must always be treated as an end, never as a= means."=20 Americans must abandon the belief "that whatever the free market produces must be valid" and that people "are autonomous units of desires, rights and legitimate values of our own choosing," the report says. "Only through ... connectedness can we approach authentic self-realization," the authors write. =20 The report is just one of several coming out on the subject. In June, the Commission on Civic Renewal, chaired by Republican William Bennett and Democrat Sam Nunn, will be finishing its report. The Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, is scheduled to release a book this month on civil society. By TIM WHITMIRE, Associated Press Writer Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net ====================================================================== 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 ====================================================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Nation needs to fix its moral compus Date: 29 May 1998 08:18:46 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 29 May 1998 TIM WHITMIRE, Associated Press Writer wrote: A report by a "24-member non-partisan panel", after a lot of high-sounding babble, concluded by the following: > Elshtain said panelists agreed that moral truths exist, but argued over > whether such truths are theological or secular. > > Ultimately, the panel adopted the "natural theology" of the nation's > founding fathers, who enshrined in the Constitution the belief that, as the > report says, "people ... possess transcendent human dignity, and that > consequently each person must always be treated as an end, never as a= > means."=20 Poppycock. The Founding Fathers enshrined "transcendent human dignity" in the Declaration of Independence. It was left out of the Constitution in favor of monied interests, and they enshrined instead the abominable practice of slavery, which resulted in the defining cataclysm of the 19th Century American Experience 70 years later. Slavery is the ultimate result of "treating people as a means". It took the 13th Amendment to "unenshrine" treating people as a means. > > Americans must abandon the belief "that whatever the free market produces > must be valid" and that people "are autonomous units of desires, rights and > legitimate values of our own choosing," the report says. > > "Only through ... connectedness can we approach authentic > self-realization," the authors write. Sure. We need to fix a "moral compass" by abandoning the Free Market, the only moral economic practice, for a Government regulated economy, with all of its immorality and corrupt, demeaning, degrading results. And no "moral" individual should have desires, rights, and values of their own choosing. So we need to abandon Individualism for Collectivism. NOT! We've been "abandoning the Free Market" and society has progressively degenerated by toying with a many and varied array of just these sorts of amoral and immoral collectivist themes for years. If we keep on doing what we have always done, we will keep on getting what we have always got. What we have is 24 people on a non-partisan panel with too little to do. What they need is some serious grief in their life, preferably visited upon them by JBGT's, to give them a new perspective on morality. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Nation needs to fix its moral compus Date: 29 May 1998 08:18:46 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 29 May 1998 TIM WHITMIRE, Associated Press Writer wrote: A report by a "24-member non-partisan panel", after a lot of high-sounding babble, concluded by the following: > Elshtain said panelists agreed that moral truths exist, but argued over > whether such truths are theological or secular. > > Ultimately, the panel adopted the "natural theology" of the nation's > founding fathers, who enshrined in the Constitution the belief that, as the > report says, "people ... possess transcendent human dignity, and that > consequently each person must always be treated as an end, never as a= > means."=20 Poppycock. The Founding Fathers enshrined "transcendent human dignity" in the Declaration of Independence. It was left out of the Constitution in favor of monied interests, and they enshrined instead the abominable practice of slavery, which resulted in the defining cataclysm of the 19th Century American Experience 70 years later. Slavery is the ultimate result of "treating people as a means". It took the 13th Amendment to "unenshrine" treating people as a means. > > Americans must abandon the belief "that whatever the free market produces > must be valid" and that people "are autonomous units of desires, rights and > legitimate values of our own choosing," the report says. > > "Only through ... connectedness can we approach authentic > self-realization," the authors write. Sure. We need to fix a "moral compass" by abandoning the Free Market, the only moral economic practice, for a Government regulated economy, with all of its immorality and corrupt, demeaning, degrading results. And no "moral" individual should have desires, rights, and values of their own choosing. So we need to abandon Individualism for Collectivism. NOT! We've been "abandoning the Free Market" and society has progressively degenerated by toying with a many and varied array of just these sorts of amoral and immoral collectivist themes for years. If we keep on doing what we have always done, we will keep on getting what we have always got. What we have is 24 people on a non-partisan panel with too little to do. What they need is some serious grief in their life, preferably visited upon them by JBGT's, to give them a new perspective on morality. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Nation needs to fix its moral compus Date: 29 May 1998 09:08:36 -0700 Bravo! Once again, Harry not only nails it on the head but reinforces my standing policy of reading messages with mispellings in the subject line last. (Just teasing you Paul, spelling is not a big deal to me.) Thanks for an excellent post Harry. Having just read the Reuters article "Executive privilege battle recalls Watergate" on excite.com, Harry's sentence; "If we keep on doing what we have always done, we will keep on getting what we have always got." rang true for me with the clarity of the Liberty bell. Boyd "Moral individualist" Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Nation needs to fix its moral compus Date: 29 May 1998 09:08:36 -0700 Bravo! Once again, Harry not only nails it on the head but reinforces my standing policy of reading messages with mispellings in the subject line last. (Just teasing you Paul, spelling is not a big deal to me.) Thanks for an excellent post Harry. Having just read the Reuters article "Executive privilege battle recalls Watergate" on excite.com, Harry's sentence; "If we keep on doing what we have always done, we will keep on getting what we have always got." rang true for me with the clarity of the Liberty bell. Boyd "Moral individualist" Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The Probability Broach, excerpt #2 Date: 29 May 1998 16:59:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded: ====================================================================== You folks will LOVE this book! Patty The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith Tor, copyright 1980, 1996 Available from Amazon.com for $5.59 Also availble from http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html Best libertarian sci fi/alternate universe book I've *ever* had the pleasure to read! Excerpted, pages 92-95 In 1789, the unlucky year 13 A.L., the Revolution was betrayed. Since 1776, people had been free of kings, free of governments, free to live their own lives. It sounded like a Propertarian's paradise. Now things were going to be different again: America was headed back--so Lucy and the encyclopedia said--toward slavery. The fiend responsible for this counter-revolutionary madness was Alexander Hamilton, a name Confederates hold in about the same esteem as the word "spitoon." He and his Federalists had shoved down the country's throat their "Constitution," a charter for a centralist superstate replacing the minigovermnents that had been operating under the inefficient but tolerable Articles of Confederation. Adopted during an illegal and unrepresentative meeting in Philadelphia, originally authorized only to revise the Articles, this new document amounted to a bloodless coup d'etat. Funny--as near as I remembered, these were the same *events* that had happened in my own world. But in the eyes of my new friends, historic figures like John Jay and James Madison became villainous authoritatians. Of seventy-four delegates chosen to attend the Constitutional Convention, nineteen declined, and sixteen of those present refused to sign. Of the thirty-nine remaining, many of whom signed only reluctantly, just six had put their names to the original Declaration of Independence. By contrast, that agreement had been unanimous, and most of its fifty-six signers actively opposed the Federalist Constitution. All this seemed vaguely familiar--Patrick Henry smelling a rat at Alexander's steamroller derby--but how did it square with what I'd always known? Were there really two distinct sets of Founding Fathers, philosophically at war with one another? Right off the bat, the newly chartered Congress okayed a number of taxes, one of them on whiskey. This upset certain westem Pennsylvania farmers who were accustomed to converting their bulky and perishable crop into White Lightning. They began to wonder what the Revolution had been all about. In 1792, they got together in Pittsburgh to bitch about taxes, Hamilton and his crew, and old General Washington, a once popular hero, now First President and chief enforcer of the hated tax. The farmers feared they'd traded one Tyrant George for another. The next year saw them tarring and feathering tax collectors, a fate formerly reserved for King's minions, and seriously considering hanging a few as examples. Lucy thought highly of this practice; I remembered IRS agents I'd had to work with and grinned. The old General issued a warning proclamation, and when that didn't quiet the whiskey farmers, followed it with fifteen thousand troopers under command of "Light-Horse-Harry" Lee. He quickly became known as "Dead-Horse-Harry" when the crack-shot sodbusters blasted mount after mount from under him--became the Whiskey Rebellion's running gag. I'd always thought Kentucky rifles had made the difference against the British and so on, but rifled weapons were rare during the Revolution and for a long time afterward. Federal troops carried French smoothbores. The "ultramodern" rifled guns were the private property of volunteer guerillas despised by Washington, but the only kind of army Thomas Paine approved of. The encyclopedia waxed downright eloquent about civilians being traditionally better-armed than the authorities, a principal element, it claimed, in the preservation and expansion of liberty. It made me think about my uniformed years packing a bureaucratically mandated .38 against shotguns, magnums, and autopistols. I've sometimes wished the population stripped of weapons, but I never fooled myself that it was right or even possible. Later I simply broke the regulations and carried the biggest cannon I could handle. In 1794, a Pennsylvania gentleman stepped into the fray. A former Swiss financier, Albert Gallatin disapproved of the way Alexander Hamilton handled the nation's checkbook. He organized and led the farmers and began convincing federal soldiers they were fighting on the wrong side--a tactic that created important precedents in Confederate warfare. Eventually he even persuaded General Lee, who was tired of having to find new horses, and the punitive expedition disintegrated. Thus "fortified," the 80-proof revolution marched on Philadelphia, Washington went to the wall, Hamilton fled to Prussia and was killed in a duel in 1804. Gallatin was proclaimed president. The Federalists evaporated, substantial numbers of them winding up neighbors of the Tories they'd driven into Canada. The Constitution was declared null and void, and with it the tax on whiskey. Gallatin's wizardry saved the tiny nation from becoming the world's first banana republic. Economic problems that had precipitated the Constitution Conspiracy were solved with a new currency, backed by untold acres of land in the undeveloped Northwest Territories. The Articles of Confederation were duly revised, with stringent limits on the powers, not only of the central government but of the states. They could have nothing to do with trade--such interference, in Gallatin's view, had caused all the problems in the first place. Only private individuals could "create" money, backed by any valuable commodity, to be accepted or rejected by the marketplace on its own merit. Gold and silver were soon in competition with wheat, corn, iron, and--yes--even whiskey-based currency. Gallatin's land certificates were redeemed, the last money ever issued by a United States government. He served five four-year terms in all, and lived long enough to see his own peculiar brand of anarchism begin spreading throughout the world. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: The Probability Broach, excerpt #2 Date: 29 May 1998 15:40:15 -0700 AND the entire book, indeed most of what he's written, is just that good. (Though why he called the characters gov't "anarchism" is curious to me.) Be sure to check out Pallas too for a sort of Libertarian/new west sci fi. Bretta Martyn is for you swashbuckler (Libertarian) sci fi types. For more on the theme of an alternate universe where the whiskey rebellion succeeded see his link http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/world.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: NJ Gun Seizure Update (fwd) Date: 30 May 1998 00:26:59 PST On May 29, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Parents insist son poses no threat to teacher, students Published in the Asbury Park Press 5/29/98 By AMY HUGHES and ARPIE NAKASHIAN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP -- The 15-year-old boy charged with threatening his English teacher is under court order not to go outside without parental supervision, his parents said yesterday.

"One of his friends called to talk to him yesterday and it was like somebody handed him a million dollars," said Denise Krawiec, the boy's mother. "He is isolated." The parents of Robert J. "R.J" Krawiec, the Pinelands Regional High School freshman who police say handed his English teacher a drawing of a person seen through the cross hairs of a rifle scope, said yesterday that their son is not a threat to his classmates or teachers. Authorities and the parents said the teacher was not depicted in the drawing. "This thing has been blown way out of proportion by what is going on in the rest of the country," said Robert J. Krawiec Sr. "For a rural center like this one, he ("RJ") is a normal boy pursuing normal interests like hunting, fishing and sports." Police charged the freshman with making terroristic threats and have said the boy has behavioral problems at school. Authorities said the seizure of his parents' 20 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from their home on Lake Saint Claire Drive was a precaution. The parents object to the seizure and the action against their son. "Other kids get 10-day suspensions and they are allowed to go back to school," said Mrs. Krawiec, referring to juveniles here and in Stafford Township who have returned to school after bringing live bullets to class. "But R.J. draws a picture and he is made out to look like Charles Manson." The English teacher, Sheila Sledden, informed guidance counselors about the drawing shown to her last Friday and contacted the police on her own, said Paul J. Carr, the attorney for the Pinelands Regional Board of Education. The school did not initiate the police investigation or the search of the boy's home, Carr said yesterday. "He ("RJ") is a quiet kid and the only time he strikes out is when he is pushed too hard," said the boy's mother. "Isn't everyone like that?" While the Krawiecs said their son, who is on the football and wrestling teams, has been involved in an "occasional fight" at school, he never initiates fights. "He is a big boy and people are picking on him," Denise Krawiec said. "He is tired of getting picked on and he is doing the best he can not to fight." Officials at the high school have said the freshman, who has not been at school since last Friday, has been disciplined appropriately.

But, citing educational statutes that prohibit them from discussing pupil records and disciplinary actions, officials have declined to specify if Krawiec has been suspended. "In situations like this, where there is a threat or a perceived threat, it is always prudent to remove the student," Carr continued. Policy dictates that the student be referred to the child study team for evaluation, he added. Superintendent Clement A. Crea has the authority to suspend the student for up to 10 days. The board can extend that time or expel, but must first hold a hearing, Carr said. A decision to schedule a hearing is pending the results of separate investigations by the Ocean County prosecutor's office and the district, Carr said. "It is appropriate in situations like these that such a hearing take place," Carr said. "Our primary concern is for the safety of the students and staff within the district." The Krawiecs, who teach hunter education as a team for the state Division of Fish Game and Wildlife, legally own all the seized guns. The Krawiecs, reacting to reports that AK-47s were among the items seized, yesterday showed a police search warrant inventory listing what authorities confiscated. It was mostly collectibles and hunting gear. Weapons including, shotguns, rifles, handguns, BB guns, antiques, black powder guns were stored in three locked gun safes in the home. The collection also includes three old military rifles, a bolt-action 8mm Czech rifle and two SKS 7.62 rifles. One of the Russian-designed rifles was made in China in 1945 and is a collector's item from the Korean War. Most of the ammunition was birdshot and buckshot used for hunting. That ammunition was kept in a fourth safe. "We didn't lock it (the gun collection) up to keep it away from the kids, but, for everybody's safety," Denise Krawiec said. "I don't know who might be coming to the house." Asbury Park Press http://www.injersey.com/news/story/0,1210,80470,00.html?prev=0+ -- Nation In Distress http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ As we watch the complete moral decay and destruction of our society by those who refuse to see the consequences of their failed socialist policies, we are next forced to accept their more extreme, socialist policies as solutions. [------------------------- 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: larry ball Subject: Re: Fratrum: NJ Gun Seizure Update (fwd) Date: 30 May 1998 07:39:40 -0500 I am searching New Jersey law as it is on the internet. I came across this article. It is an example of the press/media attitude about guns in "Joisey." Read and weap. Note that the author asks, "Is American society all that important?" A Value Judgment by Christopher Taylor Guns kill. The FBI says, "When assaults by type of weapon are examined, a gun proves to be seven times more deadly than all other weapons combined." "Guns have no place in the hands of our children or in the hallways and classrooms of their schools," Senator Diane Feinstein of California said on August 10, 1994. "Children should be able to go to school without fearing for their safety. Indeed, our schools should be safe havens - places where children are able to escape the violence that engulfs so many of their lives. The time has come to remove guns from the schools of America." Feinstein and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota co-sponsored the The Gun Free Schools Act to remove guns from all public schools in America. And a study done by the Emory Center for Injury Control concludes that guns are readily available to America's youth. The reasoning is backed by statistics. Senator Diane Feinstein of California's sources report that in 1994, 135,000 guns were brought to school every day. 272 adults and students were killed or wounded on campus between 1986 and 1990. The Children's Defense Fund reports that every two hours a child is killed by a gun. Conversely, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), financed in part by the federal government, will have exposed 26 million children by 1999 to a program marketing guns. Backed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the NSSF has created videos for the superficial purpose of promoting educated use of guns in hunting, but the underlying promotion of hunting and guns themselves, according to an article by Susan Glick and Josh Sugarmann in Mother Jones. Also, a recent survey published in the Electric Library said that the students of many schools do not fear for their lives, and that much of the gun controlling practices are unnecessary. Why is there such a conflict of interests? Is there a problem throughout the United States with firearms in schools, or are most of the statistics biased based upon an isolated region? What could convince everyone that there needs to be drastic measures taken when conflicting opinions can be presented? Does the problem lie in the guns themselves, or in human nature? Where does the solution lie? It would seem that to many, guns are the problem in themselves. The American Firearms Association sees it fit to deny access of firearms for persons convicted of violent misdemeanors and felonies and the Brady Law when the constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms for all persons. This group also considers themselves to be the moderate..... Does the Constitution pose a threat to national safety, to the safety in schools? Ought there be another amendment to the US constitution? The National Rifle Association considers the Second Amendment to be vital to American society....Is American society all that important? Do our children really deserve rights over safety? Mail Me - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Unarmed Dead Date: 30 May 1998 06:45:11 -0700 In light of all the anti-gun blather being bleated on Pravda the last couple of weeks, here are some statistics which show what can, and eventually does, happen when a government makes it illegal to own firearms: The following 123 million ordinary human beings did NOT have guns: The 20th century's top nine megamurderers, as estimated in the book "Death by Government" unarmed dead Joseph Stalin 42,672,000 1929-1936 Mao Tse-Tung 37,828,000 1923-1976 Adolph Hitler 20,946,000 1933-1945 Chiang Kai-shek 10,214,000 1921-1948 Vladimir Lenin 4,017,000 1917-1924 Hideki Tojo 3,990,000 1937-1945 Pol Pot 2,397,000 1968-1987 Yayha Khan 1,500,000 1971 (Pakistan) Josip Tito 1,172,000 1941-1987 (Yugoslavia) - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: War on Drugs = War on Gun Owners Date: 30 May 1998 13:39:45 -0400 >Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:01:37 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: War on Drugs = War on Gun Owners > >The enclosed was written to the Editor of Guns and Ammo >Magazine in response to an excellent article published in >the June, 1998, edition entitled CIVIL FORFEITURE - THE WAR >ON DRUGS COULD BECOME THE WAR ON GUNOWNERS. If possible, >please try to read this article. It contains a lot of >information which is truly sinister. Civil Forfeiture laws >are an issue which directly affect all citizens, no matter >whether they use or have drugs or guns or don't, and we as >citizens must attempt to address with our representatives >NOW. Please try to contact your representatives in Congress >concerning this. > >Thank you, > >Tina Terry >_________________________________ > >Tina Terry >405-C South Beeline Highway >Payson, Arizona 85541 > >To the Editor >Guns and Ammo > >May 28th, 1998 > > >I am gratified to see your publication of the article "Civil Forfeiture >- 'The War on Drugs' Could Become the War on Gun Owners." The situation >which exists in our nation because of these draconian, fascist and >utterly unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture laws is one which >profoundly affects every single citizen, whether he or she has committed >any crime or not, and whether he or she knows it or >not. To help people fully grasp the urgency and gravity of this >situation, I am enclosing the following, which is an excerpt from a >United States Department of Justice document entitled "Civil Forfeiture: >Tracing the Proceeds of Narcotics Trafficking." This is what the U.S. >Attorneys are using to guide them when property is >seized from a citizen, whether narcotics are involved or not. The last >line should chill the guts of anyone who owns anything - the government >admits baldly that forfeiture proceedings should be encouraged, since >the law has made it virtually impossible for the citizen to put the >government to its proof, and thus to reclaim his property. What is also >so ultimately disturbing is that the government shamelessly admits in >this document that it has made it so hard for anyone to prove ownership >of anything that the citizen now often has virtually no access to the >courtroom, and therefore, no >access to due process of law when his or her property is seized. The >document also encourages civil forfeiture even when criminal charges are >not filed, and practically rejoices that a suspect's pleading the Fifth >Amendment in a potentially criminal context often effectively prevents >that same suspect from then attempting to lawfully reclaim seized >property. > >We should all be asking ourselves and our Congressional representatives: > >When (and how) did our government cease being a servant of the people, >and become so completely their emperor? > >"The Advantages of Civil Forfeiture" > >Although tracing is a complex process, prospects for successful >forfeiture are eased considerably by the procedural benefits of civil >process. The most obvious feature is the lower burden of proof >confronting enforcement officials: proof by a preponderance of the >evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.(8) Furthermore, under >federal law and some state legislation, the burden of proof is placed on >the claimant rather than the government.(9) Thus, enforcement officials >need not achieve certainty in their tracing efforts. They need only >satisfy a relaxed standard of proof This is an advantage of enormous >consequence, as many cases turn on the burden of proof. Moreover, even >if criminal prosecution was precluded by operation of the exclusionary >rule, civil forfeiture may still be possible. Although the exclusionary >rule applies to forfeiture proceedings, tainted evidence may still be >sufficient to meet the lower burden of proof.(10) Indeed, civil >forfeiture may be a viable option despite an acquittal on criminal >charges.(11) > >The civil context provides other advantages as well. For example, >prosecutors may resort to the discovery process to obtain information >pertinent to tracing.(12) The claimant may be deposed and disclosure of >his records compelled. Perjury and contempt sanctions are potentially >available against untruthful or recalcitrant witnesses. And, while the >Fifth Amendment may still be asserted, a civil claimant risks an adverse >factual finding by doing so.(13) This possibility places the claimant in >a particular bind if criminal charges against him are still pending. >Asserting the Fifth Amendment may result in an adverse factual >determination, while answering questions may have incriminating >consequences in the criminal proceedings.(14) And, regardless of whether >criminal charges are pending, discovery is likely to provide useful >information for impeachment if the claimant testifies at the forfeiture >proceeding. Such testimony will often be necessary because, once the >government's evidentiary burden has been sustained, failure to provide >responsive proof will result in an adverse judgment.(15) Often times, >however, such testimony proves counterproductive because it is presented >in an evasive or inconsistent manner. > >A civil claimant is also required to establish his standing to contest >the forfeiture. Frequently, legal title to property will be in someone's >name other than the real party at interest. Most courts will not permit >forfeitures to be contested by such so-called straw men. Thus, before >the prosecution must present its proof, the claimant must establish his >standing. Normally, this requires proof of dominion and control beyond >mere legal title.(16) Federal law and some state statutes require that >this be initially accomplished by filing a verified claim.(17) In >addition, some United States Attorneys offices routinely make standing a >central discovery issue.(18) Thus, civil claimants are by no means >assured automatic access to the courtroom. > >For these reasons, the civil claimant is in a very difficult position >relative to his posture in a criminal trial. Indeed, notwithstanding >tracing obstacles confronting the government, many cases are uncontested >by potential claimants or otherwise lost on standing grounds.(19) This >means that, even when tracing obstacles exist, forfeiture proceedings >should be considered since the government may never be put to its >proof." > >Please send share this letter with as many people as you can, and >requestthat they submit it to their Congressional representatives, and >demand to know why Americans have been stripped completely of due >process of law if and when they are unfortunate enough to have the >government seize their property. The Bill of Rights was originally >written to prevent such violations of property. How in Heaven's >name do these Gestapo-like laws square with the Fifth Amendment, which >clearly states that "no person shall be deprived of property without due >process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use >without just compensation?" I guess the government got around the pesky >Fifth by simply decreeing: "We won't directly deny you due process, but >we 'll make it so hard for you to prove that you own your own stuff that >you'll never get it back. Then we can keep and sell your stuff and give >you nothing because you could never really prove you owned it." And the >fact that the courts, >including the Supreme Court, have, for the most part, upheld these laws >is an additional outrage. It is clear that we subjects of the king have >no legal recourse. > >King George III must be crowing with derisive laughter from wherever he >is now. > >Sincerely, > >Tina Terry > >cc: Congressman J.D. Hayworth > Senator John McCain > Senator Jon Kyle >-- >****************************************************************** > 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 Subject: EX-PRESIDENT BUSH PRAISES CLINTON CHINA POLICY Date: 30 May 1998 13:46:06 -0400 >Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:09:55 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: EX-PRESIDENT BUSH PRAISES CLINTON CHINA POLICY > >Amazing how those globalists stick together, isn't it? > > Liberty Belle > >**************** >EX-PRESIDENT BUSH PRAISES CLINTON CHINA POLICY > >Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government on Thursday, former >President George Bush defended Bill Clinton's planned June trip to >China, saying that actively engaging it was the only sensible policy for >the United States, the BOSTON GLOBE reports. "I think he ought to go to >China," the former president said. "I think it would be a big mistake >for him not to go to China." > >The GLOBE's Scott Lehigh reports on Friday that Bush downplayed >Republican accusations that the Clinton administration has let its China >policy be influenced by political donations funneled from China to the >Democratic Party. > >Bush said: "I honestly find it very difficult to believe that anybody >would do something that's not in the security interests of this country >for a contribution to a political party." > >"I think it is sickening if, as alleged, they tried to give money to the >Democratic National Committee," smiled Bush, who joked the Chinese >should have given to both political parties. > >During his 1992 campaign, Clinton was a harsh critic of Bush's policy of >engagement with China. In a speech at Georgetown University, Clinton >even accused his rival of coddling the Chinese -- only to adopt the same >basic policy upon taking office. > >[CLINTON: "The Bush administration continues to coddle China, despite >its continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of >Tibet, its irresponsible export of nuclear and missile technology... >Such forbearance on our part might have made sense during the Cold War >when China was the counterweight to Soviet power. It makes no sense to >play the China card now when our opponents have thrown in their hand. >[Applause]" ] > >At Harvard on Thursday, the former president insisted that a healthy >US-Chinese relationship is crucial to a peaceful and prosperous future >on Earth. > >"I think it is that big, that important," Bush said. "I am telling you, >if we neglect it, or if we continually bash to feel good, in spite of >the things that they are doing wrong, we make a huge mistake... They are >totalitarians. But they have done remarkable things that have raised the >standard of living and so I think we ought to stay involved with them." >-- >****************************************************************** > 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 Subject: Return of FBI Shooter Charge Sought Date: 30 May 1998 13:46:23 -0400 >Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:15:28 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Return of FBI Shooter Charge Sought > >NOTE: Oh Thank God! That little lady in Idaho has balls that clank! >Now let's all get behind her and send her our praise and encouragement. >As a special prize, I think the charges against Horiuchi should now be >upgraded to Murder One -- just to make the whole process worthwhile. > >-- Carl F. Worden > >********************* > >May 28, 1998 > >Return of FBI Shooter Charge Sought > >Filed at 8:35 p.m. EDT > >By The Associated Press > >BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- A prosecutor said Thursday she is >appealing the dismissal of an involuntary manslaughter charge >against the FBI sharpshooter who killed the wife of white >separatist Randy Weaver. > >U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed state charges against >Lon Horiuchi on May 14. > >He ruled that Horiuchi was acting within the scope of his >federal authority and was honestly discharging his duties >when he fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver on >Aug. 22, 1992, during the siege at Ruby Ridge. > >Lodge cited a constitutional clause that immunizes federal >authorities from liability when acting within the scope of >their jobs. > >Randy Weaver was acquitted of all charges in connection with the >11-day siege of his mountaintop cabin that also claimed the lives >of his 14-year-old son and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan. > >Weaver urged Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury to seek >reinstatement of the state charge. > >Woodbury accused Horiuchi of negligently firing the shot that >killed Mrs. Weaver as she stood inside the cabin holding her infant >daughter Elisheba on the second day of the standoff. > >Lodge said evidence indicated Horiuchi did not see Mrs. Weaver >behind the door or in the doorway of the cabin when he fired at >Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, who was ducking into the cabin. > >Harris was also cleared of all charges in connection with the >standoff. > >The Justice Department decided in 1994 against prosecuting >Horiuchi or any of his FBI superiors and reaffirmed the decision >last year. > >A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal >government is pending. Weaver filed a similar lawsuit, which >last year resulted in a $3.1 million settlement. > >Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company >-- >****************************************************************** > 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: Jack Perrine Subject: Two from Vin......Second is very powerful on Guns ....and their advantages Date: 30 May 1998 18:44:00 -0700 FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 1, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Give the money back And so the United States Congress finds itself with a tax-receipt "windfall" of $39 billion -- by the methods of accounting to which Washington has now grown accustomed, at any rate. In fact, if the Congress were to go "cold turkey" on dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund -- immediately cease "borrowing" any more of those funds for other projects -- the federal government would still be running a $63 billion deficit. (Government accountants figure the Social Security "trust fund" will start paying out more than it collects in or about the year 2010 -- when the Baby Boomers start drawing more money out than they're paying in. In fact, that prediction may be based on some unrealistic assumptions about the ages at which current retirees will die off -- increased longevity could well bring the day of reckoning even closer. And, of course, there are few if any "funds" actually left in the trust fund -- the solvency of the system depends entirely on the ability of Washington to extract enough in taxes from children still working, to fund the transfer payments to the elderly.) Thus, while President Clinton couldn't resist patting himself and his Democratic allies on the back last week for the gigantic 1993 tax hike which glommed all this booty from the paychecks and bank accounts of hard-working Americans, this perceived "surplus" has launched a new debate in Washington, as to how best to spend the loot. The president wants to declare the money off-limits until he and Congress complete plans to "shore up" Social Security. However, once the federal bean-counters determine how much should be set aside as a retirement reserve, this "does not mean that in the future there could never be a tax cut," the president said. How thoughtful. Extrapolating current trends, White House economists now project a total surplus of $495 billion over the next five years, and $1.5 trillion over the next decade. And based on that, the president says he's not ruling out a little tax cut ... someday. Republicans, meanwhile, appear split on whether to use the surplus to pay down the national debt -- now $5.5 trillion, and expected to grow to $5.9 trillion in five years -- or whether to use it to fund broad tax cuts. Of these three proposals, "setting aside" more money in the Social Security trust fund is the most absurd. Congress will soon grow used to spending these vast new sums, and as soon as we have a slow year (we (start ital)will(end ital) have another slow year, eventually), they will be right back to "borrowing" our retirement funds, to cover their new and larger IOUs. (In fact, they never will have stopped.) It would make about as much sense to loan the $39 billion to the nation's winos. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, in a rare moment of lucidity, has already proposed the gradual privatization of Americans' retirement annuities. The answer surely lies more in that direction -- placing the funds in the hands of a diversified set of private money managers who could actually be indicted for operating the kind of actuarially bankrupt Ponzi scheme now spinning out of control in Washington. As for paying down the debt, that makes better sense, and a government in real surplus should, at the very least, stop selling Treasury Bills, Savings Bonds, and the like -- immediately -- so as to incur no new interest costs. But what the president now as much as admits is that -- thanks to a booming private economy -- current tax rates are producing an avalanche of cash so large that even the legendary spendthrifts in Washington can't immediately figure out how to dispose of it. The answer is to get that money out of the hands of Congress immediately ... before they (start ital)do(end ital) come up with more spending schemes, erecting vast new bureaucratic roach hotels which will be hard as heck to exterminate when the time comes. $39 billion is something on the order of $150 extra, taken and held from every man, woman and child in this nation -- roughly $350 per household, and more from large families. If the surplus really exists -- an important caveat, given the amount of "creative bookkeeping" now in place in the capital -- the best spur to the private economy would be to send out checks in that amount to every American (more to those in higher "tax brackets," of course) on Aug. 15 ... and (start ital)then(end ital) cut taxes. Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gingrich: Give the money back. It's not yours. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." "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, buth which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA EDITORS: DUE TO LENGTH, CONSIDER THIS YOUR MONTHLY BONUS FEATURE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Stop schoolyard shootings: hand out more guns On May 21, all indications are that pencil-necked 15-year-old misfit Kipland Kinkel, only child of two well-to-do government school teachers, took a Ruger .22-caliber rifle, shot his parents to death in their home, and then headed down to the school cafeteria to wound 22 of his schoolmates, while killing two more. What all the kids in the well-to-do community of Springfield, Oregon were doing in the cafeteria early that morning, the news accounts do not say. Being taught to expect a government dole, even for breakfast? At any rate, it was another shooting in the "gun-free zones" which the "send-a-message" liberals have made of our mandatory youth propaganda camps -- oops, "public schools." So needless to say, the Usual Suspects were shortly heard from. Within days Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association -- America's largest gun control outfit -- showed up on Katie Couric's smugly hoplophobic NBC "Today" show, "debating" all-guns-to-the-state Congressman Charles Schumer on a typically heads-they-win-tales-we-lose question: whether it is federal or only local authorities who should "mandate" gun locks. Needless to say, Mr. LaPierre never asked why they were debating locks for handguns, when all the recent schoolyard shootings were done with long guns. For that matter, the firearms used in these crimes were not full-auto machine weapons (no innocent American civilians have been killed by such legally-owned weapons in years, except by government agents), nor the "murderous" assault weapons which Messrs. Schumer and Clinton are busily banning, with their "deadly" pistol grips, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs. ((start ital)That(end ital) kind of weapon, as it turns out, kills an average of three Americans per year ... fewer than are killed by bowling balls.) Since few to none of the recent school killings have involved handguns, this opportunistic political carrion-feeding on the young dead to promote bad laws already in the hopper makes about as much sense as fighting highway fatalities by requiring more life preservers on pleasure boats. Nor did Mr. LaPierre ever call the gun-banner's biggest bluff -- never asking Schumer "So you're saying gun locks are enough? If you get this law passed you'll never propose another gun control law? This isn't just one more incremental step toward total prohibition?" After all, once the victim disarmament gang effectively outlawed machine guns for most Americans, they didn't hesitate to ridicule the real reason we own guns -- "a safeguard against tyranny," in the words of Hubert Humphrey -- by simpering "Oh, you and your friends think you can stop the 82nd Airborne with your deer rifles?" Similarly, once every handgun in the country is required to be double-padlocked inside a time-locked safe, do we think they'll hesitate to argue, "Since you can no longer get the gun out on short notice, it's no good to defend you against a rapist, so how can you argue you still need it?" Advice from the Germans Highest soprano among the braying state-power bedwetters, as usual, was West Virginia's daily Charleston Gazette: "The slaughter of schoolchildren is a price America pays for being a gun-polluted society. ... The recent mass shooting at an Oregon school was the latest in a never-ending string of horrors. This is what happens in a society saturated with 200 million guns. Any child can obtain a weapon and use it in a moment of childish rage. This is what happens in a society where the powerful 'right to bear arms' lobby cows politicians, making them afraid to take any steps to protect people from the gun danger. How long will America endure this madness?" the coaldust daily ululated on May 22. The fanatical cries to disarm the victims even went international, with Germany's newspaper "Bild" pontificating on May 25 (in the quaintly spastic Associated Press translation): "A 15-year-old murdered his parents in Oregon, shot and killed two schoolmates and wounded 22 others. Again the affected will stand around the coffins, beseech God and bemoan the shameful crime. Probably they will barbarically punish the 15-year-old barbarian. Thereafter they will claim: continuous shooting in television -- only a game. The unscrupulous weapons trade -- a successful business. And the instructions to build bombs in the Internet had nothing to do with the bloody reality. Really not? High Noon in school. Disarm finally!! Also in television and the weapons closets at home. It's not a pistol that makes a man. Playing with violence is instructions on how to kill." We don't really have to respond to our Teutonic critics, do we? Their Jewish and Gypsy minorities took their advice to "Disarm finally!!" between 1928 and 1938 -- gun registration leading to confiscation, just as Mr. Schumer and Mr. LaPierre's back-stabbing NRA plan for us here, and is now underway again in both England and France. They claim European murder rates are lower than ours? Between 1928 and 1945, the German state murdered at least 8 million unarmed civilians from their own and the captured territories (not counting the deaths of men in uniform, though we probably should.) Counting famines created on purpose for political reasons, Joe Stalin and his Communists during the same years murdered civilians numbering at least 20 million. Even assuming not one single murder has occurred in Europe since 1945 -- ignoring Bosnia and all the rest -- that averages out to 400,000 murders per year since 1928, caused by the citizenry being disarmed, while their governments stayed armed -- exactly what's planned for us here. Or have the brave state socialists like Mr. Schumer or Sen. Feinstein called for disarming the DEA, the ATF, and the FBI -- America's SS -- while I wasn't listening? The government dispensary Any death of a child is a tragedy. But if someone has to be callous enough to inject a few facts into this debate, let's start here: Our murder rates are way below the European rate reported above, not in spite of, but (start ital)because(end ital) we are a well-armed nation, where the government (up until the past decade, when they started testing the waters with Waco and Ruby Ridge) never dared attempt such atrocities. (We'll have more now, of course, after federal judge Edward Lodge on May 14 -- a mere week before the Oregon rampage -- dismissed all charges against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, ruling he was "just doing his job" back in 1992 when he shot away the lower jaw and carotid artery of an Idaho woman named Vicki Weaver, wanted for no crime, who he found standing in the kitchen doorway of her home, armed with a baby. Vicki Weaver screamed for 30 seconds as she lay dying, whereupon the FBI agents who had her family home besieged named their encampment "Camp Vicky," and taunted her surviving family members over their bullhorns, asking if "Mom" was going to cook them blueberry pancakes. The fact that Gunner Horiuchi -- who has testified his qualifications include accuracy within one-half-inch at the range from which he shot Mrs. Weaver -- will not even face a manslaughter trial was by far the most important gun-crime-related story of May, 1998 ... yet how much play did it receive in your local newspaper or television station?) Actually, some excellent commentary has moved on the wires in the week since the Springfield cafeteria shooting, though it will be interesting to measure how much of this common sense made it through the nation's anti-gun editorial filters. While "What caused this?" tends to be a rhetorical question, with the inquirer standing ready to answer "guns," isn't it interesting that the day before young Kip Kinkel had his bad day in Springfield, two teens were arrested in Clearfield, Penn. for the 10-days-past murder of 15-year-old Kimberly Jo Dotts, who was dragged into the woods by her teenage friends with a rope around her neck when she threatened to "snitch" about their plans to run away to Florida. There, they hanged young Kimberly Jo by her neck from a tree, before bashing her head in with a rock. How do the gun-grabbers explain the role of the "easy availability of guns" in causing (start ital)that(end ital) schoolgirl murder, in which no firearms were involved? Easy. They just ignore it. In my newspaper, the arrests in Kimberly Jo's death were buried on page 12, on the same day the Kip Kinkel story broke on page one, with photos. And since it didn't fit the anti-gun agenda, Kimberly Jo's horrendous murder was thereafter ignored -- even as we heard day after day of anti-gun follow-ups about Kip Kinkel's rampage. But even in the Oregon case, there is a far more obvious suspect than "guns," as Maureen Sielaff was quick to detail in the Vigo Examiner (http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com): "Kip Kinkel had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription drug called Prozac," Ms. Sielaff reported early the next week. "Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this drug is alleged to induce in patients. "Prozac is commonly given to youth as a treatment for depression. In the book 'Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs,' by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts." The drug's form PV 2472 DPP, prepared by Dista Products Company (a division of Eli Lilly) and last revised on June 12, 1997 -- the paperwork included in each package of Prozac -- lists such other "frequent" symptoms as "chills, hemorrhage and hypertension of the cardiovascular system, nausea and vomiting, agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional liability, sleep disorder, ear pain, taste perversion, and tinnitus." If this kid gets a good lawyer, look for a "Prozac defense." And if that happens, my cheery thought for the day is that young Kipland could be looking at as little as three-to-seven on the psychiatric farm. "Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to this sudden increase in homicidal shootings," Ms. Sielaff continues, "these events do not appear to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership. But when the percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is compared to the percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very disturbing pattern emerges. ..." In an apparently unrelated incident the same week, I find the Cincinnati Inquirer editorializing on May 14, "Last month, when a classmate suffered a severe asthma attack on a school bus in Mount Airy, Md.., Christine Rhodes, 12, shared her prescription inhaler with the stricken girl -- possibly saving her life. "In a rational world, Christine would be hailed a hero. But 'rational' is not a word that fits the world of education these days. Christine was branded a 'drug trafficker' by school officials -- a black mark that will remain on her record for three years. Makes you wonder what they were inhaling." Two years before, and also in Ohio, the paper noted, "Two middle-school girls were suspended for sharing a packet of Midol." It is not the dimmest, but the brightest of our young men who are bound to go stir crazy as their government incarceration stretches to 13 years and beyond ... as they are forced to spend 12 or 13 years having the sparks of creativity and intellectual curiosity snuffed out, learning less than their grandfathers learned in eight, merely to satisfy the labor unions' economically misguided desire to keep them off the job market, bolstered by the teachers' union full-court-press for full employment now dubbed "dropout prevention." Meantime, as the religious zealots whoop it up, demonizing every recreational drug of choice but their own, just as fast as they do "guns," does anyone really know how many of our schoolchildren (particularly boys) are now doped up by school nurses with Prozac and Ritalyn, relatively new drugs whose long-term psychiatric effects are only now beginning to be discovered? If you shut up enough animals in a small enough cage, they will eventually start killing one another. Do the mass dopings of kids like Kip Kinkel subdue their "escape" response, and if so are the effects actually worse when they finally break through? Is anyone even tracking the (start ital)growth rate(end ital) of these mass drug-dosings of our innocent young men by their government wardens? And doesn't this mean our schools' "zero tolerance" drug policies really only mean zero tolerance for (start ital)competing(end ital) drug pushers? The crime shortage On May 28, I published across the top of our own Op-ed page here in Las Vegas a piece by James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute, pointing out that the New York Times ran the story of the Springfield, Ore. shootings "for three straight days on the front page," while "President Clinton used his Saturday radio address to decry the 'changing culture that desensitizes our children to violence'." The only problem is, according to Mr. Glassman, "The truth about violence in America is that it is falling, not rising. From 1993 to 1996, the number of murders fell 20 percent, and just four days before the Oregon shootings, the FBI announced preliminary figures for 1997 that found both murders and robbery down another 9 percent and overall crime off for the sixth straight year. Murders in New York City fell a stunning 22 percent in 1997; in Los Angeles, 20 percent. ... "You have to wonder about the claims of pop psychologists and of the president himself when he says, as he did Saturday, that the rising tide of murders and mayhem on TV, in movies and on video games, is turning kids into killers. U.S. News noted that 'juvenile murder arrests declined ... 14 percent from 1994 to 1995 and another 14 percent from 1995 to 1996'." But if violence is falling, why do these rare schoolyard incidents get so much media play? "One answer may be a crime shortage," Mr. Glassman figures. "At a Harvard symposium recently, one panelist pointed out that local TV news shows have to import violent footage now that local criminals aren't turning out enough product (there were only 43 murders in Boston last year, the fewest since 1961). ... "So, what's the meaning of the schoolhouse slayings? Frankly, not much. The meaning of the hysteria over them ... now, that's worth looking into." Writing for the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service a few days later, Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., concurred: "I have now been on television news following every one of the recent school killings answering basically the same question: 'How do you explain the trend of shootings by kids in rural schools?' My answer is always the same: I cannot explain it, because no such trend exists. ... "In 1992, 55 killings occurred in America's schools -- a remarkably small number. By 1997, that number dropped by more than half, to 25. By contrast, 88 people were killed by lightning in 1997. "The Los Angeles County School System, with about 600,000 students in it, has not had a homicide since 1995. The District of Columbia, with about 600,000 citizens, has had about 600 homicides since that time. "Overall, between 1994 and 1996, there was a 30 percent drop in juvenile homicides in America. Ninety kids were arrested in rural communities for the crime of homicide in 1996, compared to 1,800 in cities. ... "Between 1992 and 1996, the homicide rate in America dropped by 20 percent. But the number of homicides reported on network news increased by 721 percent. ... Distorted coverage of ... these events has violated recently victimized communities, frightened parents, fomented reactionary legislation and misinformed the public. Worst of all, it may be creating an environment where other troubled youths are copy-catting their well-publicized peers." Too many laws The NRA's standard cry, "Why don't we enforce the laws already on the books?" can get to sound pretty lame through repetition. But in fact, I remember interviewing Marion Hammer of Florida (since elected to head the NRA in Washington) about one of the tourist murders in Florida five years back, and having her point out that the culprit -- a young woman -- had been arrested for being a convicted felon in possession of an illegal concealed weapon while shoplifting -- as well as resisting arrest -- only few days before. The authorities let her out due to a lack of jail space (too many victimless dope smokers tying up the cells, presumably.) Similarly, Kip Kinkel was arrested and booked for bringing a stolen gun to school the day before his murder rampage ... but then promptly released back into his helpless parents' custody. So, it turns out the NRA's recurrent cry has some specific application: Why push for more gun laws, when the cops aren't able enforce the 20,000 gun laws already on the books? To outlaw everything has the same effect as to legalize everything, except that the cops are thus empowered to harass anyone, any time they want. The Florida tourist-shooting epidemic is also relevant in another way. In 1993, as research by Prof. Gary Kleck of the University of Florida has shown, Florida crime rates were actually plummeting, due to new laws which allowed far more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. As that beneficial change took place, the only motorists who criminals could be assured would be unarmed were newly-arrived tourists driving rental cars with big fluorescent rent-a-car stickers. Once the airport rental lots started removing those stickers, Florida's "tourist murder crime wave" disappeared virtually overnight. Similarly, one of the last places a criminal knows he can find unarmed victims in an increasingly well-armed and peaceful America today ... is in the "gun free school zones" in which the snivelliberals have locked up our children. Hand out more guns In fact, it turns out that if a solution to schoolyard violence is needed, experts with some mighty solid credentials propose that the solution is not to ban guns, but to hand out more: Slated to appear Monday, June 1, I'm publishing in the Review-Journal an excellent piece initially prepared for the Los Angeles Times by John R. Lott, Jr., a fellow at University of Chicago School of Law, and author of ''More Guns, Less Crime'' (University of Chicago Press, 1998), under the headline: "To stop mass shootings, hand out more guns: When Israel armed teachers, the school shootings ended." In that essay, Professor Lott writes: "What might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them. Police officers or armed guards cannot be stationed everywhere, so gun-control laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves. "Other countries have followed a different solution. Twenty or so years ago in Israel, there were many instances of terrorists pulling out machine guns and firing away at civilians in public. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found ordinary people pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings. "The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in the Middle East further illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Israelis had 'complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said.' "Hardly mentioned in the massive news coverage of the school-related shootings during the past year is how they ended. Two of the four shootings were stopped by a citizen displaying a gun. In the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss., which left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter while waiting for the police." (That assistant principal had, fortunately for all, violated federal law by bringing that firearm onto campus, even though he left it in the glove compartment of his car. "More recently," Professor Lott continues, "the school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., which left one teacher dead, was stopped only after a bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his gun. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes. Who knows how many lives were saved by these prompt responses?" Dr. Lott's exhaustive studies of multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995 reveal that "only one policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. "The effect of 'shall-issue' concealed handgun laws, which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness, was dramatic. Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, injuries by 82 percent. ... "Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided coverage of gun use. Horrific events like the Colin Ferguson shooting receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively -- including cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen -- are ignored. ... Without permitting law-abiding citizens the right to carry guns, we risk leaving victims as sitting ducks." Sitting sucks like Colin Ferguson's victims on the Long Island Railroad, that is -- all forbidden by New York law to carry weapons for their own self-defense. The gun-grabbers will respond "a resident of the house is more likely to be injured than an intruder." But only if they cleverly include suicides in their statistics, of course. Besides, you can scare away 100 intruders without ever wounding one, just by showing your weapon. Which makes the minuscule "wound" statistics a red herring. Crediting Eddie Eagle All these statistics can get a little boggling, I know. So let's take a specific example. The Elko Daily Free Press reports that on April 7 of this year, an unnamed 15-year-old boy in that northern Nevada community tried to stop an intruder from beating his mother, but found he was not strong enough to do so. The lad therefore raced into his mother's bedroom, retrieving a .22 semiautomatic handgun, loaded several rounds into the clip, inserted the clip into the weapon, returned, and fired at the assailant three times, hitting him twice and killing him. "He is credited with saving the life of his mother, and possibly the 3-year-old child also present," the newspaper reports. "The mother suffered a broken cheekbone, a broken nose, several bruises on her body, and a cut to her forehead from the attack." "It seems to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of self-defense," said D.A.. Gary Woodbury, in which case "an inquest is not warranted." If Mr. Schumer's proposed federal "gun lock" bill had been in effect -- or even the non-federal version tacitly OK'd by Mr. LaPierre -- the Elko teenager would have done better attempting to whack his mother's assailant with a fireplace log. Following the successful Israeli example of arming teachers and parent volunteers, Georgia state legislator Mitchell Kaye has now proposed one of the few legislative initiatives likely to directly address the problem: He wants to authorize and encourage Georgia teachers to carry concealed weapons at school. "They know that all the adults in these school gun-free zones are unarmed, and that's the problem,'' Kaye told CNN the day after the Oregon shootings. In a carefully scripted line, the gun-grabbers reply that teachers "are supposed to educate children, not execute them." But we don't give weapons to police officers in the hopes they'll "execute" their suspects, do we? Guns are the great deterrent, preventing crime by their very presence. The NRA does do (start ital)something(end ital) useful. The victim disarmament gang whine that the group's "Eddie Eagle" gun safety and training classes are nothing but "Joe Camel with feathers." But as it turns out, the parents of the young wrestling team member who finally jumped and subdued Kip Kinkel, 17-year-old Jacob Ryker, credit his firearms training with the fact that he was able to detect when Kinkel's .22 rifle was empty, timing his leap when the assailant had to change weapons. Linda Ryker also credited her son's familiarity with firearms for helping Jacob deal with the crisis, keeping his wits about him even after he was shot. With his son shot but recovering, Linda's husband Robert, a Navy diver, proudly wore his National Rifle Association cap during the family's press conference. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." "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, buth which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: correction from VIN Date: 30 May 1998 18:55:53 -0700 FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA PLEASE FIX IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Stop schoolyard shootings: hand out more guns EDITORS: In the 58th paragraph of this story, please change spelling of "sucks" to "ducks." Sentence should read: Sitting ducks like Colin Ferguson's victims on the Long Island Railroad, that is -- all forbidden by New York law to carry weapons for their own self-defense. Thank You, Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." "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, buth which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #87 (fwd) Date: 31 May 1998 00:16:49 PST On May 31, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia May 31, 1998 #87 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at:=20 http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html UNCONSTITUTIONAL DO-GOODER LAWS The legal barracudas are swarming again. =20 They smell dollars. And it looks as though these=20 manipulators of the law have found yet another quasi-legal=20 trick to rip off hundreds of billions of dollars from an=20 unsuspecting American public. With tobacco, as everyone knows by now, their=20 method of providing legal cover was to "protect our health." =20 In so doing, a couple hundred shysters sued tobacco=20 companies in the name of addicted smokers, government=20 medical plans, and whatever. Then the ever-oppressive=20 Congressional lawmakers got involved and compounded the=20 issue under the dubious mantra of "stopping children from=20 smoking." In truth, some in Congress noticed that private=20 attorneys, and some State governments, were about to=20 realize a windfall of billions of dollars. Congress=20 wanted in on that, and so raised the cost to the American=20 public to hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and=20 other hidden costs. Forgotten in the confusion of things is the=20 fact that the original private attorneys starting this=20 foolishness will all become multimillionaires from this=20 one case. And we, of course, will ultimately be the ones=20 to pay them. We warned months ago that if this case was=20 allowed to proceed, many thousands of lawyers would be=20 shopping around for another such fat cow to slaughter for=20 a great payday. And, sure enough, here it comes. Last week we read: 'A coalition of health=20 organizations and medical experts has identified the fast=20 food industry as being vulnerable to the same regulations=20 which threaten to snuff out cigarette producers.' No=20 doubt, we thought, and so started doing some snooping=20 around. Found in one place: "A recent report in the=20 journal of the influential American National Cancer=20 Institute (Who's that?) pointed out that the risks of=20 contracting diseases through eating too much fast food=20 were almost the same as those caused by smoking." Found in another place were proposals by a=20 group of do-gooders for curbs on junk food advertising=20 aimed at children. And, of course, they want compulsory=20 physical education and nutrition classes in schools, too. =20 So, to pay for that they demand a "junk food tax" on=20 unhealthy meals. Another buttensky group, the American Health=20 Foundation, reports: "According to Advertising Age, the=20 1996 advertising budget for Coca-Cola Classic was $131=20 million, for McDonald's, it was $599 million. The=20 National Cancer Institute's budget for the five-a-day=20 promotion of fruit and vegetable consumption was under=20 $1 million." "Not fair!" say the small chorus of do-gooders=20 wishing more control over the lives of others. So they=20 intend to "fix" that. Which, of course, will involve=20 lawyers, courts, massive lawsuits, and 40% commissions=20 for all of the law firms participating. "Ideas that were once considered ridiculous=20 are now being taken seriously," warned Jacob Sullum, a=20 Libertarian writer on smoking issues. "Just look at how=20 you could easily say that the fast food chains explicitly=20 target children as young as five, and you can see how=20 things might go. We know, for example, from the=20 [McDonald] McLean that they can remove fat from these=20 products. So the next step will be to ask, why don't they=20 do so?" The groups are assembling their "scientific"=20 facts, too. Among these "facts" is a 600 page report=20 titled "Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A=20 Global Perspective," presented as a major new=20 international report on cancer prevention. The report examines "the relationship between=20 dietary factors and 18 specific cancers, provides new=20 dietary guidelines for cancer prevention and offers public=20 policy recommendations to help make cancer prevention an=20 achievable goal." The report can be found at: =20 http://www.aicr.org/report2.htm So here we go folks. The do-gooders will=20 soon be urging Washington to curb the unhealthy effects of=20 eating too many Big Macs and Quarter Pounders, and=20 certainly they'll be going after those large servings of=20 onion rings and French fries too. They will be requesting=20 legislation to clamp down on companies like McDonald's,=20 Wendy's and Burger King in the very same way they did Joe=20 Camel and the Marlboro Man. Anyone with deep pockets is fair prey for=20 these social scavengers with law degrees. And the budgets=20 of the fast food industry are very large. Janet Colwell, a columnist for the San=20 Francisco Business Times, says that "if a high- cholesterol, fat-laden diet with no redeeming nutritional=20 value is an express ticket to the grave, McDonald's may=20 one day find itself explaining its marketing strategy to=20 the courts and an increasingly hostile public. We may one=20 day find burger-eaters alongside smokers huddled=20 pathetically in alleyways, victims of an anti-cholesterol=20 establishment." When the federal government wanted to outlaw=20 alcoholic beverages, it found there was no authority=20 within the bounds of the Constitution to do so. =20 Therefore, Congress proposed a Constitutional Amendment. =20 Today, we see an assault on tobacco products, another=20 legal product. Again, there is no authority within the=20 Constitution allowing the federal government to even speak=20 on the subject. But yet they proceed. And we allow that. Tomorrow, they will tell us how fast we can=20 drive, what type of food we can eat, how much water we=20 can use in the toilet, how we may use our land, and where=20 we can drink a beer. Whoops, I forgot. They already unconstitutionally=20 created authority to do all that. Tomorrow they crack=20 down on Whoppers and Big Macs. Then comes sugar. How long will it be till they get to the stuff you like? ROLLING THUNDER -- AGAIN They came to make a statement, and that they=20 certainly did. Loud and clear. And at three-quarters of=20 a million strong, they were heard. Believe me, they were=20 heard! Over the Memorial Day weekend, three quarters=20 of a million people invaded the District of Columbia. =20 There were so many people there that they disrupted=20 traffic for three days. There were so many people there=20 that their parade took about four hours to pass. The=20 national news, however, did not cover it. These were=20 American Patriots. And unfortunately, for the liberal=20 national news, patriotism is no longer politically correct=20 in these United Sates. The media people heard it, though. They had=20 to hear it. This was ROLLING THUNDER! The name Rolling Thunder arose, as we ground- pounders know, from B52 bombers carpet bombing vast=20 stretches of jungle during the Vietnam war. Awesome,=20 that. Today, the term pertains to motorcycles -- as in big=20 Harley Davidsons. And in this case, many thousands of big=20 Harley Davidsons, along with a few other brands. Yes, National Chairman Artie "The Dictator"=20 Muller pulled it off again. This was possibly the biggest=20 and best Rolling Thunder yet. Check it out at: =20 http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5975/rt11.htm Click=20 around and look for pictures. They're there someplace,=20 and well worth searching for. The organizers say: "Rolling Thunder is about=20 Pride. It is about the pride we have as Americans. The=20 pride we have in the men and women of the Armed Services=20 that provide the blanket of freedom and security we so=20 often take for granted. "Rolling Thunder is about bikers taking a=20 message to Washington, DC. They ride to honor the fallen,=20 to thank those that returned and to demand an accounting=20 for those still missing." "This gathering of real Americans is designed=20 to send a message to Washington that those that were=20 willing to die for their country will never be forgotten=20 or forsaken. We are only getting stronger!" Artie Muller=20 explained. American Patriots of the highest order, one=20 and all, we add. And I also add: Rolling Thunder is a message=20 about liberty and freedom, from those who fought for it=20 once and will do so again if it becomes necessary. The=20 pride and determination of these veterans and their=20 friends never ceases to bring tears to the eyes and a=20 sinking feeling in the heart of those of us not fortunate=20 enough to attend. In fact, it's time I force these old bones to=20 make that pilgrimage one more time. It's been a few years. =20 Perhaps next year we should all attend. Perhaps we can=20 show Artie that there are still well over a million=20 patriotic American citizens out here who really do care. =20 Maybe we could show ourselves too, and that belligerent=20 leviathan we call government. Next Memorial Day. At the Pentagon's parking=20 lot. Early. Bring good earplugs. And trust me folks: =20 You will never -- EVER -- forget Rolling Thunder! Such=20 a demonstration can only happen in the United States. NEGLIGENCE AND JUNK SCIENCE AT EPA There's an old joke among practicing scientists: =20 Those who can't do teach. Perhaps it's time we added=20 something that is not a joke to that old saying: Those=20 who cannot do, and cannot get a job teaching, work for=20 government. A report by Matthew L. Wald in last Friday's=20 New York Times is a case in point. If we wish to be kind,=20 we can file this information under unintended consequences. =20 Actually though, it more properly belongs in the sloppy=20 science file. That is, the government's so called=20 "scientists" did not do their research properly before=20 proposing strict new regulations. As Wald reported: "The catalytic converter,=20 an invention that has sharply reduced smog from cars, has=20 now become a significant and growing cause of global=20 warming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency." Catalytic converters, it turns out, rearrange=20 the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide,=20 which most of us know as laughing gas. And as it happens,=20 nitrous oxide is reported to be a potent greenhouse gas. =20 The EPA "experts" assert that carbon dioxide is the most=20 common greenhouse gas warming the atmosphere. Nitrous=20 oxide, the same experts say, is more than 300 times more=20 potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Recently, the EPA estimated that nitrous oxide=20 comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global=20 warming. The catalytic converters on cars and trucks=20 produce nearly half of that nitrous oxide. And, according=20 to EPA, the nitrous oxide emissions are increasing rapidly. As the New York Times reported, Wylie J.=20 Barbour, an EPA official who worked on the recently=20 published report, said that the problem created by the=20 converter is classic. "You've got people trying to solve=20 one problem, and as is not uncommon, they've created=20 another." Sure. That usually happens when sloppy=20 science is the rule and proper research discouraged. =20 Perhaps there's a reason the "scientific method" is=20 neither easy nor fast? Christopher S. Weaver, an=20 engineering consultant who wrote a study on the subject=20 for EPA, said, "We haven't cared enough to establish=20 standards." Right. Neither has EPA cared enough to do=20 the proper research. Finally, EPA may be properly exposed for=20 using junk science to back up obnoxious regulations. Last=20 week, Congressmen David McIntosh (R-IN) and Richard Pombo=20 (R-CA), the National Wilderness Institute (NWI), career=20 EPA scientist David Lewis, and the Landmark Legal=20 Foundation charged that EPA under Administrator Carol=20 Browner: grossly misuses science for political ends;=20 intimidates and harasses employees who question agency=20 policies; and commits or condones numerous unethical and=20 possibly even illegal activities. In a press release dated May 12, the Landmark=20 Legal Foundation lays out the problem: "Landmark Legal Foundation and the National=20 Wilderness Institute (NWI) today are calling on Attorney=20 General Janet Reno to investigate widespread abuses at the=20 Environmental Protection Agency. The demand follows the=20 release today of an NWI-sponsored investigative report of=20 EPA misconduct ranging from violating agency ethics rules=20 and federal whistle-blower laws, to falsifying documents=20 in federal judicial proceedings. "In his letter to Attorney General Reno, Landmark=20 President Mark R. Levin pointed out possible violations of=20 the Hatch Act and the Congressional Review Act. Moreover,=20 the NWI report, 'The People v. Carol Browner: EPA on=20 Trial' details allegations of possible federal crimes by=20 EPA officials including perjury, fraud and false=20 statements, coercion of political activity by agency=20 employees, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. "The wide-ranging and pervasive misconduct=20 revealed in the NWI report cry out for an immediate and=20 full investigation of the EPA administrator and her=20 department by Public Integrity Section of the Justice=20 Department's criminal division. Moreover, the conduct of=20 Justice Department lawyers working with the EPA raises=20 serious questions that must be reviewed by the=20 Department's Office of Professional Responsibility." Dr. Bonner Cohen, Editor of EPA Watch and=20 the report's author noted that, "In my research I was=20 struck by one recurring theme: none of this misconduct is=20 even remotely related to protecting our environment." NWI Director Rob Gordon noted that "EPA=20 under Vice President Al Gore's prot=E9g=E9, Carol Browner,=20 has become a rogue agency driven by self-interest, not by=20 a concern for science, law, people's welfare or protection=20 of the environment." Among the charges made in the report are=20 the EPA and Army Corps of Engineer practice of abusing=20 the rights of citizens by violating the Congressional=20 Review Act and establishing unwritten and unpublicized=20 regulations. In other words, the practice of enforcing=20 secret regulations that property owners have no chance of=20 complying with because the regulations were not published. Actually, many of us believe that both EPA=20 and the Army Corps of Engineers make up the supposed=20 regulations as they go along, on a case by case basis. =20 Regardless, the practice is both unconstitutional and=20 tyrannical, and those involved should be prosecuted to the=20 fullest extent of the law. The full National Wilderness Institute report by=20 Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D. can be found on the NWI web page at: http://www.nwi.org/Special%20Studies/EPAReport/EPAstudy.html BURNING MEXICO They plan to demand that citizens curtail=20 driving by 50% to cut air pollution. Not here -- yet --=20 in Mexico. It appears that the centuries-old slash & burn=20 practice Mexican farmers use to clear farmland got a bit=20 out of hand this year. The "burn" part, that is. Now,=20 along with all the illegal drugs, Mexico is sending us=20 smoke. Over 1,000,000 acres are burning in Mexico. =20 The resulting smoke -- read air pollution -- is all the=20 way up to the central United States. There are out of=20 control fires over most of Mexico, a Mexican government=20 representative reported last Wednesday. And, of course,=20 he was worried about endangered species. The fires affect=20 about 1,500 endangered plants, the Mexican official said. =20 Migratory birds, too. Not a lot was said about the people,=20 mostly just plants and animals. They blame it on El Ni=F1o. NOAA said that=20 "El Ni=F1o is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system=20 in the tropical Pacific having important consequences for=20 weather around the globe. Among these consequences are=20 increased rainfall across the southern tier of the US and=20 in Peru." . . . "El Ni=F1o was originally recognized by=20 fisherman off the coast of South America as the appearance=20 of unusually warm water in the Pacific ocean, occurring=20 near the beginning of the year. El Ni=F1o means The Little=20 Boy or Christ child in Spanish. This name was used for=20 the tendency of the phenomenon to arrive around Christmas." For more information and an interesting MPEG=20 animation, check out the NOAA web page at:=20 http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/el-nino-story.html =20 The United States received more rain than=20 necessary, especially in our deserts. And it appears that=20 certain places in the North East United States are about=20 to have a bumper crop of all plant life this year. But,=20 Mexico is not getting enough rain. So, they're having=20 this little problem, which is quickly becoming our problem. And now, our U.S. EPA is wondering how to=20 respond. Driving might be curtailed in our Southern=20 States, too. Not that it would help anything, of course. =20 But EPA would like an excuse to pass even more strict=20 regulations, and Al Gore wants us out of our cars. The=20 smoke provides a good excuse. Yet, the source of the problem is in Mexico. =20 And the fires were started by humans. Intentionally. =20 They clear land like that every year. No matter, though. =20 Our EPA bureaucratic lawmakers are on the job. And they=20 cannot be expected to sit back and do nothing for very=20 long. The United States offered fire-fighting help=20 in the form of manpower and aircraft. But the Mexican=20 officials said they do not need anymore aircraft help from=20 us, which seems very strange. The aircraft carry water,=20 and dump it on the fires. The problem is that the largest water source=20 down there would be the oceans. However, salt water on=20 farmland is not really good for the proposed crops. So, they have over one-million acres burning,=20 and we get the smoke. And soon, probably, the new EPA=20 regulations. TIGER NEWT By: Craig M. Brown -- for Heads Up Isn't it great? Our embattled Speaker has=20 once again located his spine. Lately he has been blasting=20 the White House and its treasonous occupants on everything=20 from selling our national security to turning the White=20 House into a bordello. Way to go, Newt! At last you're=20 saying the things that have needed saying for five years. But wait a minute. I just started looking at=20 some of the things you're doing -- or more accurately, not=20 doing. All of us who follow the Internet know about the=20 atrocious and unconstitutional American Heritage Rivers=20 Initiative that our President authorized with an Executive=20 Order on April 8th. That order, which would strip all=20 state and local control of our rivers and tributaries and=20 send it to a federal bureaucracy, has been decried by=20 state legislatures across the country. It also caught the=20 attention of one of the few members of Congress who=20 actually seems to care about the United States=20 Constitution. I'm referring to Idaho's Helen Chenoweth,=20 who introduced HR 1842, which would defund the AHRI. This=20 is a straightforward bill that all our Congress people,=20 except those 58 Members in the socialist "Progressive=20 Caucus," would have to support. So what has happened to Helen Chenoweth's=20 HR 1842 since it was introduced last year? According to=20 Tom DeWeese in his latest report, it has been sitting on=20 Newt Gingrich's desk, gathering dust. If Newt would=20 release it to the floor for a vote, there is little doubt=20 that it would move quickly to the Senate for ratification=20 with a veto proof vote. But it seems Newt is too busy=20 talking the talk to walk the walk. The same goes for President Clinton's latest=20 abomination against state sovereignty and the rights of=20 the American people. This is his Executive Order that=20 makes state and local governments subservient to federal=20 regulators. He did this without his usual fanfare in the=20 rose garden, surrounding himself with a crowd of=20 multiracial children, all wondering why they were there. =20 No, he signed this one quietly while hiding away in=20 England. No cameras, no press releases. We had to find=20 it out by tapping into the White House web site. This=20 particular Executive Order, in one stroke of the=20 Presidential pen, eliminates the freedoms our forefathers=20 guaranteed us and we have been fighting to preserve ever=20 since. It was signed on the 14th of May and will become=20 law thirty days after the signing. Unless it is stopped=20 by Congress, that is. And here again, if our Speaker of the House=20 doesn't get up and act like the leader of the majority=20 party by denouncing this assault on state sovereignty=20 before it becomes law on June 14th, we will see a=20 completely unfettered onslaught of federal regulatory=20 agencies treading upon our liberties. But the blame=20 cannot end with Newt Gingrich alone, because one strong=20 voice by any member of Congress would light a flame that=20 would kill this Presidential order. I live in Kentucky, and I know full well the=20 determination of Kentuckians to resist federal regulators=20 intent on taking away our freedoms. I know how we have=20 besieged our Kentucky Congressional delegation, headed by=20 Jim Bunning, with demands that they support us by getting=20 us out of the AHRI. We have been met with silence. This=20 has caused us to stop and wonder what has happened to our=20 fiercely conservative Congressman Bunning who once stole=20 our hearts by standing firm against the excesses of big=20 government. Now, when our state, which is bordered on three=20 sides by the Ohio River, is threatened by the American=20 Heritage Rivers Initiative, Congressman Bunning will not=20 even go so far as to request that his district be excluded=20 from this program. Today, Jim Bunning, Newt Gingrich, and=20 all of those who we brought to the dance, seem to be=20 telling us that their dance cards are filled. -- End - I would remind you; extremism in the defense=20 of liberty is no vice. . . . And let me remind you also,=20 that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. -- Barry Goldwater =20 at the 1964 Republican National Convention=20 [------------------------- 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 ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- -