From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RAPTUS: Fwd: [FP] Health Care About to be Nationalized (fwd) Date: 30 Jun 1998 22:14:47 PST On Jun 30, Sarah wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] SCAN THIS NEWS 7/1/98 Someone once explained to me that, in order to remain profitable, a cattl= e farmer MUST KNOW, at all times, the health condition of his cattle. Otherwise, diseases could set-in costing the farmer a bundle. It is the farmer's responsibility -- and duty -- to continually keep close tabs on = the health condition of his heard. He must administer vaccines and other medication as he sees fit and so determines for the prevention of disease. Furthermore, he must consult with "statisticians" (who have developed "probability" statistics on all the various cattle ailments) to determine whether any given member of his heard is more likely to live or to die wi= th a particular ailment. The statistics will then be used to determine wheth= er to medicate or eliminate. The farmer must also set a budget for health maintenance, medication, and treatments -- and he must stick with it. The "cost/benefit" ratio will be used to determine which animals must be euthanized. But most importantly the cattle farmer must constantly and closely monitor and track the health of each and every individual heard member. Since he is funding the "healthcare" for the whole heard, the far= mer has a RIGHT to do all these things, right? What? Did you think the "cattle" would make these decisions? And now the government wants to monitor your health care? Wonder why... [From WorldNetDaily] http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/btlines/980629.btl.hcare.nationali.html Health care about to be nationalized So you thought Clinton-care was defeated and discredited, huh? Incrementally, one baby step at a time, politicians in Washington have continued their long march to nationalize all medical and health services provided in the United States. And they are about to take one of those "great leaps forward" for which socialists are so proud and famous. With little fanfare and no media coverage, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala announced earlier this month a plan to assign a NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (emphasis added to original here) to every health-care provider in the country. "The national standard employer identifier will help eliminate paperwork, simplify activities such as enrollment in health plans and payment of health insurance premiums, and save money for consumers," said Shalala in making her announcement June 16. "This is good government, and good sense." Now, before getting into the nitty-gritty details of this plan, or, for heaven's sake, the constitutionality, just ask yourself: When did federal involvement in any activity ever reduce paperwork, simplify things or save money? The plan is a direct result of the passage of the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill -- a back-door legislative approach to inching us to the same goal of nationalized health care Hillary Clinton envisioned in 1994. It's a perfect example of how, even after setback, ridicule and humiliation, Big Government marches on, grabbing power and reducing individual freedom with the help of both major political parties. What the Shalala plan would do is establish the government's ability to track not only every health-care provider but every health-care transaction between doctor and patient. The Kennedy-Kassebaum law explicitly includes a clause establishing the federal government's exclusive "right" to unfettered and unlimited access to every patient's medical records. Shalala has developed the mechanism -- an ID number every doctor, nurse and dentist must use to document every service provided to a patient. Shalala has decided the best number -- surprise, surprise -- is the health-care worker's SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER (emphasis added) or Federal Taxpayer Identification Number. Remember when the government promised only to use Social Security numbers for Social Security? Mind you, the services tracked will not just be those in which taxpayer funds are used. All transactions, no matter how private, must be reported to the government under the new rules. The government may use this information to decide, in its infinite wisdom, whether services provided are truly necessary or not. Fines and penalties are prescribed for such practices. Are you ready to trust Big Brother with your medical secrets? When will the American people awake from their stupor to comprehend the liberties they are compromising? Is national debate no longer even considered necessary before Washington is permitted to hijack personal privacy and individual freedom? Time is running out on this one. THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENT ON THE NEW SHALALA RULES IS SET FOR JULY 6. (emphasis) You can read the rules for yourself on the Health and Human Services Web site [ http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/regindex.htm ] and E-MAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO MEET THE DEADLINE! (emphasis mine) Oh, I know what they'll tell you in Washington if you protest this insanity. They'll tell you this is just a "simplification" process -- an administrative change designed to promote efficiency and cost-savings. Let them know you don't buy it -- that you're not willing to sacrifice your privacy and freedom at any cost. But your responsibility as an American goes way beyond that. We're fighting a losing battle with the long arm of government -- and this is just one pathetic example. Someone should inform Ted Kennedy, Nancy Kassebaum, Donna Shalala and the rest of our "saviors" inside the beltway of what the Founding Fathers had to say about government and its role in "protecting" us. "Government is not reason," George Washington wrote. "Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Let me add a few other observations: Government is not efficient. Government is not fair. Government is not just. Government cannot save you money. And, most of all, government has no authority, no justification and no right to interfere in or eavesdrop on the most personal private decisions made between you and your doctor. Get the government out of your doctor's office. Get the government out of your medical records. Get the government out of your private life. If you don't, everything our forefathers sacrificed to accomplish with this noble American experiment in freedom will be lost. A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at http://www.ktkz.com/ --- ---- Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on Employer Identifier http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/admnsimp/index.htm Proposed Rules Open for Public Comment http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/admnsimp/nprm/regindex.htm HHS NEWS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: HCFA Press Office (202)690-6145 --- ---- May 7, 1998 HHS PROPOSES ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION STANDARDS FOR HEALTH CARE TRANSACTIONS HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala today announced new proposals to streamlin= e the processing of health care claims and reduce the amount of paperwork required in the U.S. health care system. The plans include a requirement that every health care provider -- hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and others -- be provided with a uniqu= e alpha-numeric identifier to be used in filing claims for reimbursement by public and private insurance programs. HHS also is proposing regulations that would establish a standard format for the submission of electronic claims. "These are important steps toward a faster, simpler, less costly, and mor= e efficient health care system," Secretary Shalala said. "We are working wi= th the private sector to prepare our nation for the information age in healt= h care." At present, health care providers are assigned different identification numbers by private health plans, hospitals, nursing homes, and such publi= c programs as Medicare and Medicaid. These multiple provider ID numbers res= ult in slower payment of bills, increased costs, and a lack of coordination. The proposed rules published in today's Federal Register are two of the administrative simplification steps provided for in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). By promoting the grea= ter use of electronic transactions and the elimination of inefficient paper forms, the regulations are expected to save at least $1.5 billion over th= e first five years of implementation. Under the first proposed rule, health care providers would apply for an eight-digit identifier that they would use whenever processing claims electronically. They would apply for that identifier only once and keep i= t when they move from one state to another or if they change specialties. Under the second rule published today, every health care provider would b= e able to use a single standard electronic format to bill for services rendered. All health plans would be required to accept these standard electronic claims. Currently, different insurers utilize different electronic and paper claims forms creating a confusing and cumbersome sys= tem for health care providers and taking providers' time away from their patients. The electronic claim proposal also includes new standards for other commo= n transactions and for reporting diagnoses and procedures in the transactio= ns. Health plans will be able to pay providers, authorize services, certify referrals, and coordinate benefits using one standard electronic format f= or each transaction. Using a standard electronic format, providers will be a= ble to inquire about whether a patient has insurance coverage or the status o= f a claim or request authorizations for services or specialist referrals. Employers who provide health insurance to their workers and their depende= nts also will be able to use a standard electronic format to enroll or disenr= oll employees and to make premium payments to any health plan with which they contract to do business. "These efforts will help more providers move from paper to electronic transactions," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, which runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs. "This will make information exchange more efficient and accurate, and res= ult in better service for consumers." Later this year, HHS will issue other administrative simplification proposals to establish national ID numbers for health plans and employers and to establish stringent new security rules to protect patient confidentiality. --- ---- June 16, 1998 - Shalala Proposes National Standard Employer Identifier HHS NEWS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: HCFA Press Office (202)690-6145 --- ---- Tuesday, June 16, 1998 SHALALA PROPOSES NATIONAL STANDARD EMPLOYER IDENTIFIER --- ---- HHS Secretary today announced plans for HHS to standardize the identifyin= g numbers assigned to employers in the health care industry by using the existing identifying numbers already assigned by the IRS. The move is expected to save $1.5 billion over the first five years of implementation. "The national standard employer identifier will help eliminate paperwork, simplify activities such as enrollment in health plans and payment of hea= lth insurance premiums, and save money for consumers," said Shalala. "This is good government, and good sense." The proposed national standard employer ID number is the Employer Identification Number (EIN), which is issued and maintained by the Intern= al Revenue Service. Businesses that pay wages to employees already have an E= IN. Under the proposed rule, health care providers, health care clearinghouse= s, and health plans would use this number to identify the employer on electronic health transactions that require an employer identifier. Currently, health plans, providers, and employers may use different ID numbers for an employer when they conduct business. Having multiple ID numbers for a single employer slows activities such as health plan enrollments and health plan premium payments, and increases costs. "Standard health identification numbers are important components of electronic health transactions. Using the existing Employer Identificatio= n Number is an efficient, logical choice because most employers already hav= e it," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, which runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The national standard employer ID number proposal, published in today's Federal Register, is one of several administrative simplification efforts underway. These efforts will promote electronic transactions and the reduction of paperwork. Savings, even taking into account start-up costs, are expected to total $1.5 billion over the first five years of implementation. In addition to the national standard employer identifier, other proposals under the law will call for national standard ID numbers for use in healt= h care systems for health care providers and health plans. Further, the law also requires standards for common electronic health care transactions, c= ode sets, and stringent new security rules to protect confidentiality of and access to health records. All health plans, health care clearinghouses, a= nd any health care providers that conduct electronic health transactions wil= l be required to abide by these standards. --- ---- Note: HHS press releases are available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.hhs.gov/ --- ---- Frequently Asked Questions About the National Standard Employer Identifie= r (EIN) [From the HHS web page] 1. Why is a standard employer identifier needed for electronic health transactions? Employers, as sponsors of health insurance for their employees, often nee= d to be identified in health care transactions, and a standard identifier f= or employers would be beneficial for transactions exchanged electronically. Health care providers may need to identify the employer of the participan= t on claims submitted to health plans electronically. Employers need to identify themselves in electronic transactions when they enroll or disenr= oll employees in a health plan or make premium payments to health plans on behalf of their employees. Employers and health care providers may need t= o identify an employer as the source or receiver of information about a participant=92s eligibility. 2. What standard is being proposed as the employer identifier for use in electronic health transactions? We are proposing the Employer Identification Number (EIN), the taxpayer identifying number for employers that is assigned by the Internal Revenue Service. This identifier has nine digits with the first two digits separa= ted by a hyphen, as follows: 00-0000000. 3. Has the Internal Revenue Service agreed to the use of the EIN as the standard employer identifier for use in electronic health transactions? Yes, on January 16, 1998 the Internal Revenue Service agreed to the use o= f the EIN as the identifying number for employers in all electronic health care transactions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountabili= ty Act of 1996. 4. How does an employer obtain an EIN? The Internal Revenue Service maintains the process for assigning EINs. An employer obtains an EIN by submitting IRS Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number, to the IRS. Any business that pays wages = to one or more employees is required to have an EIN as its taxpayer identify= ing number. There would be few, if any, employers that would not already have= an EIN for taxpayer identifying purposes. 5. Some employers have more than one EIN. Which one should be used for electronic health transactions? In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making we ask for public comment on whethe= r one of the employer=92s EINs should be used consistently in electronic he= alth transactions and how that one EIN should be selected. 6. Who is required by HIPAA to use the EIN in electronic health transactions? HIPAA does not require employers to use the standard employer identifier = or standard health care transactions. However, we believe that many employer= s will want to take advantage of this standardization. Providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses are required to use the standard employer identifier in electronic transactions, such as health care claim= s or eligibility inquiries, if the transactions require an employer identifier. 7. How would a provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse obtain the EIN of an employer for use in electronic health care transactions? Health care providers, health plans, or health care clearinghouses would obtain an employer=92s EIN directly from the employer. The proposed rule = would require an employer to disclose its EIN, upon request, to any entity that conducts standard electronic transactions that require that employer=92s identifier. The authority to require this disclosure is implicit in HIPAA= =92s directive to the Secretary to adopt an employer identification number for use in the health care system. We have identified no reason for an employ= er to refuse to furnish the number. The EIN, unlike the Social Security Numb= er, is not information about a person. EINs are not considered private and th= ey may be freely exchanged by employers and others. Reply to: To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml --WebTV-Mail-1764905157-2333-- [------------------------- 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 Jul 1998 09:23:32 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: State judge rules federal policy is unconstitutional (fwd) Date: 01 Jul 1998 09:24:39 PST On Jul 1, Bruce Stanton wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/01/natl.guard.gays/ SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) - A California Superior Court judge Monday ruled against the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and ordered the California National Guard to open its ranks to all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Judge David Garcia, said in his ruling that the California National Guard violates the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals under the California Constitution by banning them from service under "don't ask, don't tell." ********************************************************** This is interesting. The anti-gun crowd has long argued the Second Amendment applies to state run militias, such as the National Guard. If the federal government steps in to fight this, it will show the National Guard are really federal troops. Pilgrim -- Home page at: http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~bruels PGP public keys at: http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~bruels/publickey.htm [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Jeff Cooper's Commentaries - Jul/98 (fwd) Date: 02 Jul 1998 22:18:31 PST On Jul 2, Barry Needham wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Attached is the latest issue of Jeff Cooper's Commentaries. Comments can be sent directly to Jeff at: Jeff Cooper Gunsite Ranch Paulden, Arizona 86334. As usual, I would be happy to forward any comments from our international readers. These Commentaries are also available on the web. In fact, all of the Commentaries, from the end of the old Gunsite Gossip, are available. The new url(s) for this are: http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/JeffCooper/ http://wwww.concentric.net/~mkeithr/jeff/index.html http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/jeffcooper/ Enjoy, Barry. ============================================================= Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Previously Gunsite Gossip Vol. 6, No. 7 July, 1998 Solstice Suddenly it is mid-year. My how the time do fly! The summer solstice is the official beginning of summer, which has never been our favorite season -- since leaving school. In school, of course, things were different. Mr. Nourse, our esteemed boys' vice principal at John Boroughs Junior High School, once wrote as follows: "Parents look forward to vacations with misgivings. Girls with eagerness. Boys with joy. Parents look forward to the end of vacations with relief. Girls with regret. Boys with despair." Yes, Virginia, there is a gender gap. * * * We continue to be amused by the odd term "double-action only" as applied to trigger-cocking self-loading pistols. It would seem obvious that nothing can be double and single at the same time, and you can only fire a double-cruncher one way. However, a good many people do not seem to care what they say. Our Uncle Argus, of affectionate memory, once stated upon the appearance of a dreadful looking mutt in the yard, "Fine looking dog -- if you don't care what you say." It is pretty hard to maintain communication if people do not care what they say. * * * The new Taurus field pistol in caliber 454 Casull seemed attractive to those who like to hunt big game with a handgun. On first examination it seems very interesting. We shall see how it stands the test of time. * * * Perhaps you heard of the recent cougar incident up in Colorado only a couple miles from the winter residence of daughter Parry and her family. It seems this foot slogger was set upon, without apparent provocation, by the cat while walking on a forest trail. He threw it off with his Swiss army knife and his thumb, which he drove into the beast's eye. A cougar is not a very big animal, and though very strong, rarely seems to kill when it attacks humans; but, as with the leopard, it usually sets up a painful and expensive stay in the hospital. * * * Welcome to the vast right wing conspiracy! That is us, in case you have not noticed a conspiring recently. * * * The International Palma Match, as you know, is fired at 1,000 yards. It must be fired with ammunition suitable for the military arm of the nation entering the match, though now the "second-line" 30 caliber military cartridges are accepted. The contestants have discovered that when using 150-grain, 30 caliber bullets there is a tendency for accuracy to fall off as the projectile drops back through the speed of sound. Consequently the trend now is to build great, long barrels for Palma Match rifles in the attempt to boost velocity up to where bullets will still reach the target at supersonic speed. We wait to see whether this really has any affect on international scores. * * * We continue to be annoyed by commentators who insist that a certain type of firearm -- a 1911 auto, for example -- is designed only "to kill people." If we overlook the capacity of the defensive handgun to intimidate an attacker, that idea may be true, but we could respond by saying that a scalpel is only designed "to cut people." But we can hardly expect the logical approach from our entrenched hoplophobes. I cannot believe that all these people are essentially stupid. What they are, I propose, is simply envious. The man who cannot cope automatically envies the man who can. * * * As previously reported, the 308/165 performed with complete satisfaction in Africa last May. The preferred combination, however, remains the 30-06/220, in the African consensus. * * * We notice that the BATmen have officially announced that they would prefer to be called ATmen. That is to say, they call themselves the "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" rather than the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms." (Apparently the Feds are going to keep the B in FBI.) It is immodest to give one's self too much importance, but if I have caused the BATmen to change their name because of my writings, I will be highly satisfied. I guess I am on the ninja hit list, but perhaps that is just boasting. * * * To no one's surprise the proliferation of concealed carry laws in this country has resulted in a noticeable reduction in crime. The new laws do create a problem for the street punk, since he can no longer tell who is armed and who is not. * * * Note that family member Curt Rich has just released a new and very important work called "Drive to Survive." Curt, in addition to being a fully experienced combat infantry officer, is also a firearms enthusiast, but above that, he has driving credentials as long as your arm. He knows whereof he speaks. I have read the draft from beginning to end, and I counsel all the faithful to purchase not one, but two, copies of this book -- one to read and to loan. Here is a "how-to" book which may really make a difference, if we can get enough people to read it. You can order your copy from Curt Rich at 7000 Katy Road, Houston, TX 77024. * * * In a previous issue we opened a discussion as to the purpose of education. This has developed quite a response, but has not produced a philosophically authoritative consensus. The main hurdle seems to be the confusion of education with trade schooling. Most people seem to think that trade schools are a good thing, especially those who feel that the purpose of education is to get a job of some sort. But many large organizations, for example the Marine Corps, feel that they are better off running their own trade schools than depending upon diplomas from institutes over which they have little control. In any case, I do not believe that one can successfully argue that the purpose of education is access to gainful employment. To the extent that this may be true, it is a secondary goal. To my mind, the purpose of education is to produce a cultivated individual. That, of course, is dodging the issue, since we must define what we mean by "cultivated." This definition, however, gives us a place to start, and that is something we can not ignore if we wish to arrive at a meaningful conclusion. * * * The German Mateba automatic revolver in caliber 357 seems to be going great guns. I am going to make an effort to get a chance to shoot one of those, if only to find out what its appeal is. * * * It appears that the cardinal sin in the view of the wimp culture is that of being "judgmental." The only way to avoid being judgmental is to have no principles. We were given our brains in order to make judgements, and that includes value judgements. Values, by definition, are valuable, so by all means let us be judgmental! Jump into the argument and win! * * * In a recent issue of Safari Times Terry Blauwkamp analyzed a questionnaire put to hunters in both North America and Africa to develop a body of doctrine which might be useful to aspirants, whether hunters or outfitters. The results were most interesting. More than 40 African PH's responded to the questionnaire, and they pretty well corroborated what we have come to accept as proper African doctrine. By 28 to five the opinion was that hunters bring telescope sights that are too big. By 14 to one they voted against quick detachable mounts. Variable scopes were scorned -- they were always set wrong at the wrong time. Reloaded ammunition was found reliable by a score of 34 to four. Factory ammunition was successful by a score of 31 to five. However, the majority questioned said that reloaders tend to be better shots than those who do not reload. Premium bullets were highly regarded -- by a score of 29 to nine. The general opinion was that American hunters are "velocity crazy," always opting for the higher velocity and the lighter bullet in any given load, which is the reverse of what most of the African hunters recommend. And here is the item which indicates what the professional hunters base their observation on. The average number of shots taken to down an animal was 6.6. The major point upon which I disagree with the majority of those questioned was the suitability of the 375 for buffalo. They liked it, I don't. Properly placed, a 375 will do for buffalo, but a bigger gun provides a certain edge, and if you are going to carry a bigger gun, I think you should make it a BIG one. (The matter of recoil control enters here, but I am not going to make much of that. Recoil effect upon the shooter is about 85 percent mental. Proper training, understanding and practice will handle it. There are those who say that some people are physiologically over-sensitive to recoil. If this is true, I suggest that the individuals involved should not hunt buffalo.) * * * "If you don't mind being where you are, you are not lost." - Bruce Truter * * * Those interested in criminology should reflect that back in the early 18th century there was a considerable piracy problem throughout the world, but concentrated heavily in the Caribbean and the Southeastern United States coast. It was solved in a rather obvious way. All governments concerned agreed that piracy on the high seas was a capital offense and should be punished by death. All pirates captured were hanged on the spot, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Piracy stopped. * * * I only fired once on our recent hunt in Africa, but I had the chance to observe more field shooting on the part of other people than ever before. I learned many things. Ranges in the delta were longer on this occasion than previously, running up to just short of 300 paces. This did not reduce our score because everybody involved had been proven to be a good shot before coming along. We found it a good practice to call one's shot on game, even more than on paper targets. Every time that striker goes forward the shooter should tell himself exactly where that shot went, immediately after working the bolt. We took much pleasure in "catch and release" hunting. This amounts to "snapping in" on game targets with an empty chamber. I particularly prize one such that I took on a particularly fine lion. I do not have his skin, but I have nearly equivalent satisfaction. * * * One of the high points of this last hunt was a fire raid on an adjoining camp by an adventurous leopard. The cat broke into the kitchen when all hands were asleep, and located a rack of biltong hanging to cure above the butchering table. When he leaped up on the table it went over, breaking loose the pipeline on the gas-powered refrigerator. The pipe was brushed against something hot and caught fire. Much annoyed, the leopard rushed off into the dark, leaving the kitchen tent to burn almost to the ground. That is a new one in our experience. * * * Our host up in the delta does business with all sorts of clients, and told us a tale of an interesting Chicago-type confrontation. Some of these hunters are disreputable types, and this one client proved no exception. He paid his obligations by check, and then when he was safely back in Chicago he stopped payment, his excuse being that the hunt did not turn out to be exactly what he wanted. Now this is definitely a version of defrauding an innkeeper, but it is pretty hard for a hardworking PH from Southern Africa to bring suit against some rich kid in Chicago. The matter turned out rather well, however. The following year Ian took out a group of "self-made Chicago businessmen" who had connections at home. When he told them the tale they looked serious and told him not to worry, the matter would be taken care of. As soon as they got back to base, they took steps. Immediately a new check was forthcoming, and this one was honored. There is much to be said for the way the brotherhood does business. * * * I suggest you get your order in for your Steyr Scout before the crazies on the other side discover how efficient it is. The people who are terrified at the ownership of "automatic weapons" will have great cause for alarm if they ever find out about the Scout. And when you get it, I recommend that you strip off the extensions on the butt. You want a Scout to be as compact as possible, and a short stock is a definite asset on the snap shot. * * * (Contrary to what you might suppose, I do not receive one penny from either Steyr Mannlicher or Gun South Incorporated. I know that may be hard to believe on the part of the money-minded, but it is nonetheless the fact.) * * * How many of you know what a fossa is? Neither did we. It turns out that the ferocious fossa (ferox is his specific name) is a sort of outsized mustelid that serves to keep down the population of lemurs on Madagascar. He is not a true weasel, however, since he has claws that retract like those of a cat, but he weighs about 50 lbs and is conspicuously agile in the trees. As with his distant cousins the wolverine and the ratel, he shows no fear of man, but as of yet he has not killed anybody except lemurs. It amazes me never before to have heard of this fascinating beast. * * * At the recent general meeting of the NRA in Philadelphia, we had occasion to talk briefly with family member John Milius, of cinematic fame. His situation in Hollywood, while eminently successful, is pretty dreary. He represents the tradition of American heroism, which the show people in general are trying to eradicate. For example, he told us that his "Roughriders" (the best movie we had seen in a long time) was not mentioned for any sort of recognition by the Hollywood establishment. The New York Times reviewer, moreover, complained that the Roughriders movie made us proud of our historic heritage, rather than ashamed, as we ought to have been. That's the word, "ashamed"! John is definitely swimming against the tide, and more power to him! * * * "The desire to order other people around and make them conform to one own's vision takes many forms." - Thomas Sowell Which emphasizes the great difference between those of us who are activist gun owners and other "extremists" who devote themselves to causes. Unlike the zealots who agitate for other causes, from tobacco bans to bunny hugging, we shooters have no wish to push other people around. Our major desire is that they leave us alone. It is odd that nobody has mentioned that difference before. * * * Many of you are aware of the classic adventure tale "Jock of the Bushveldt" (if not, you should be). This work, written by Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, has enjoyed intermittent periods of popularity ever since I was a school boy. Now it is being printed again, but note that it has become a victim of what may be called "fictional revisionism." Fitzpatrick, who knew very well of what he spoke, portrays the racial situation during the Low Veldt gold rush at the end of the last century just as it was, and, of course, it was not "politically correct." So a couple of editors, with disgusting and immodest arrogance, have sought to "purify" this classic tale so as not to injure anyone's tender feelings. Thus it is that if you undertake to acquire a copy of "Jock," be sure you get it in unexpurgated form. In its new edited version, it suggests telling the story of Tarzan without the apes. * * * "When the fog of battle closes in, victory is won by sergeants rather than generals." - The Guru * * * Anyone for "three weapon golf"? In this game you do your driving with a 60mm mortar, utilizing a smoke bomb. You make your approach with a hunting bow, using a 6 inch balloon as your target. You do your putting with a 1 -- second draw from the leather using the major-caliber pistol of your choice. Impossible, you say? I bet Bill Gates could arrange it if he cared to. * * * It is widely assumed that feral domestic animals are more dangerous to their human associates than their wild brethren. (Okay, I am sorry about the passive voice, which my esteemed superior, General Cushman, told me never to use; so I will say, "I have always assumed this to be the case.") Just last year up in Zimbabwe the game rancher Allan Fisher was very nearly killed by a "pet" kudu that he had raised from infancy into a fully mature 50-inch bull. He was in the process of distributing food for his animals one morning when he was struck violently from behind and smashed to the ground. Kudu, unlike sable and roan, do not use their horns efficiently, and this one savaged Marsh with head and hooves, as well as with the points of his horns. Marsh got hold of the horns and the kudu dragged him here and there until losing him in a clump of trees. His shoulder had been crushed down into his thorax, collapsing a lung and driving his heart out of place. His condition was life-threatening for two days, and he may never regain the full use of his right arm. This was a pet kudu, heretofore gentle and unaggressive. What went wrong? Your guess is as good as anyone's. * * * "Statistically, fighting back is safer than giving in." - Curt Rich * * * This trigger-lock business is just about as ridiculous as any political issue can get. As we have pointed out before, if you want to render your handgun inoperative all you need to do is take it apart. With a solid frame revolver you need only snap a cheap padlock through its top strap. Why should you buy a trigger-lock? Well, obviously the answer is so that people who make, distribute and sell trigger-locks can prosper. This transparent marketing ploy is so obtuse that I would think even a politician could see through it. If you have a mean little kid in your household, you are simply going to have to explain life to him. Trying to frustrate him by gadgetry is a futile pastime. A mischievous little kid can out-fathom any sort of restrictive device -- while you wait. * * * Despite what you may have read or heard, Charlton Heston's presidency is not going to change the NRA. Our principles are sound. Our philosophy is unassailable, and we are not out of any so-called "mainstream." It is the media which stand outside the mainstream in their ivory towers in the megalopolis. We in the NRA hope that Charlton Heston's extraordinary oratory and personal charisma may move these louts in the media into the mainstream. As with most vital issues, the irreconcilables stand at either end and are not going to be moved by political pressure. It is the undecided in the middle who need to be convinced, and I think Mr. Heston is an ideal choice to do just that. * * * I note with distaste that there are some people who have been graduated from Grey Gunsite who call themselves Gunsite graduates. Technically they are, but no one should ever confuse them with the family of Orange Gunsite graduates. * * * There may be more to Philadelphia than meets the eye, but W.C. Fields could not find it, and neither could I when I was stationed there as a fresh-caught second lieutenant back in the dim, dead days before World War II. What Philadelphia does offer is Independence Hall, which every patriot should visit, and the Old Original Bookbinders restaurant, which is one of America's outstanding landmarks of gastronomy. As an officer in basic school, I was entitled to liberty (conditions permitting) from close of inspection on Saturday til Monday morning. It was my custom to make a beeline for the Bookbinders, where I would enjoy a bowl of snapper soup and one medium lobster, after which I would take the train for New York. We were careful to drop in on the occasion of the NRA general meeting just past, and we can say with satisfaction that the restaurant is just the same as it was -- except for the prices. I could afford to dine at the Bookbinders on a second lieutenant's pay in 1941, but no second lieutenant can eat there now unless someone else is buying him dinner -- so much has inflation diminished our lifestyle in half a century. * * * The more I see in the field and on the range, and the more I read in the magazines and see on the tube, the more I realize that nobody has been to school. Violations of correct technique are the rule, rather than the exception. It is a good thing that we have a couple of good texts on the market to show people the way, but considering how few people read, the future does not look bright. * * * We all mourn the passing of Barry Goldwater, who enjoyed the title of "Mr. Conservative" for many years. He was an honest-to-God man, and he will be remembered for many years for a number of things, but his most powerful pronouncement, of course, was as follows: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." The faint of heart will do well to study that pronouncement. * * * Please Note: These "Commentaries" are for personal use only. Not for publication. Barry Needham barry@needham.vip.best.com NOTE! New pager number --> Pager: 1-888-530-5814 PGP 5.0 key available on request [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fwd: Time poll] (fwd) Date: 02 Jul 1998 22:17:39 PST On Jul 2, larry ball wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] IMPORTANT We is losing this one big time Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com looks like we'll have to go back and re vote this one. time disliked the results the first time. Nancy http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html =========== >Return-Path: >Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 13:20 -0400 (EDT) >From: Charles manahan >Organization: MCI >To: Nancy Herrington >Subject: Time poll > >Someone has figured out how to screw up the data in the Time poll. >Time itself reset all the votes to zero this morning, and I watched >it go very heavy PRO gun up to about 490 votes. I had to do something >else, and when I looked back about 20 min later, the count was at 4830 >and VERY ANTI gun. "Own a gun" didn't even add up to 100%. My guess >is that an antigunner figured out how to send a count of a couple of >thousand answers to the poll site. So much for polls. Time will probably >keep this one. It shows what they want it to show. [------------------------- 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: Most Americans have no business celebrating tomorrow... (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1998 14:23:03 PST On Jul 3, ataylor@nmsu.edu wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Most Americans should be ashamed to celebrate the Fourth By Vin Suprynowicz JULY 3, 1998 NOTE: This "classic" column was originally published on July 3, 1997. What an inconvenient holiday the Fourth of July has become. So long as we stick to grilling hot dogs and hamburgs, hauling the kids to the lake or the mountains, and winding up the day watching the fireworks as the Boston Pops plays the 1812 -- written by a subject of the czar to celebrate the defeat of our vital ally the French -- we can usually manage to convince ourselves we still cling to the same values that made July 4, 1776, a date which still rings in history. Great Britain taxed the colonists at far lower rates than Americans tolerate today -- and never dreamed of granting government agents the power to search our private bank records to locate "unreported income." Nor did the king's ministers ever attempt to stack our juries by disqualifying any juror who refused to swear in advance to "leave your conscience outside this courtroom and enforce the law as the judge explains it to you." The king's ministers insisted the colonists were represented by Members of Parliament who had never set foot on these shores. Today, of course, our interests are "represented" by one of two millionaire lawyers -- both members of the incumbent Republicrat Party -- among whom we were privileged to "choose" last election day, men who for the most part have lived in mansions and sent their kids to private schools in the wealthy suburbs of the imperial capital, for decades. Yet the colonists did rebel. It's hard to imagine, today, the faith and courage of a few hundred frozen musketmen, setting off across the darkened Delaware, gambling their lives and farms on the chance they could engage and defeat the greatest land army in the history of the known world, armed with only two palpable assets: one irreplaceable man to lead them, and some flimsy newspaper reprints of a parchment declaring: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these 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 Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. ..." Do we believe that, still? Recently, President Clinton's then-Drug Czar, Lee Brown, told me the role of government is to protect the people from dangers, such as drugs. I corrected him, saying, "No, the role of government is to protect our liberties." "We'll just have to disagree on that," the president's appointee said. The War for American Independence began over unregistered, untaxed guns, when British forces attempted to seize arsenals of rifles, powder and ball from the hands of ill-organized Patriot militias in Lexington and Concord. American civilians shot and killed scores of these government agents as they marched back to Boston. Are those Minutemen still our heroes? Or do we now consider them "dangerous terrorists" and "depraved government-haters"? In "The Federalist" No. 46, James Madison told us we need have no fear of any federal tyranny ever taking away our rights, arguing that under his proposed Constitution "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," and predicting that any usurpation of powers not specifically delegated would lead to "plans of resistance" and "appeal to a trial of force." Another prominent federalist, Noah Webster, wrote in 1787: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." Is this still true today? Or -- as we all prepare for the new National thumbprint ID Card, pre-screening by Washington before we can accept a new job, and national firearms registration (including long guns) beginning Dec. 1, 1998 -- are those who arm themselves and make contingency "plans of resistance" against government usurpations instead branded "conspirators" and "terrorists," and ridiculously associated with Timothy McVeigh? (McVeigh was kicked out of the only militia meeting he is ever known to have attended -- in Michigan. His actions surely reflect more directly on the screening process of the outfit that gave him his training in munitions -- the United States Army.) In Phoenix last week, an air conditioner repairman and former Military Policeman named Chuck Knight was convicted by jurors -- some tearful -- who said they "had no choice" under the judge's instructions, on a single federal "conspiracy" count of associating with others who owned automatic rifles on which they had failed to pay a $200 "transfer tax" -- after a trial in which defense attorney Ivan Abrams says he was forbidden to bring up the Second Amendment as a defense. Were the Viper Militia readying "plans of resistance," as recommended by Mr. Madison? Would the Constitution ever have been ratified, had Mr. Madison and his fellow federalists warned the citizens that such non-violent preparations would get their weapons seized, and land them in jail for decades? Happy Fourth of July. 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." [------------------------- 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: More Executive Orders on the Way?? (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1998 13:51:00 PST On Jul 4, Joe Sylvester wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ((Anyone want to wager that the upcoming EO "intended to reduce juvenile crime" will instead take another bite out of the second Amendment?)) ((quoted from: THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE =A9 "THE Internet Clipping Service" 1079 Farroll Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 tpd@callamerica.net Vol 4-L070498 )) [02] Clinton to Bypass Congress in Blitz of Executive Orders=20 President will use strategy to move his domestic agenda past GOP resistance. He starts today with announcement of warning labels for unpasteurized juices.=20 By ELIZABETH SHOGREN LA Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON--Frustrated by a GOP-controlled Congress that lately has rebuffed him on almost every front, President Clinton plans a blitz of executive orders during the next few weeks, part of a White House strategy to make progress on Clinton's domestic agenda with or without congressional help.=20 His first unilateral strike will come today. According to a draft of Clinton's weekly radio address obtained by The Times, he plans to announce a new federal regulation requiring warning labels on containers of fruit and vegetable juices that have not been pasteurized. Congress has not fully funded Clinton's $101-million food safety initiative, which among other things would pay for inspectors to ensure that tainted foods from other countries do not reach American consumers.=20 After that initiative, Clinton will take executive actions later in the week that are intended to improve health care and cut juvenile crime, according to a senior White House official.=20 While not far-reaching, Clinton's proposals are intended to make gradual progress on largely popular social reforms until Republicans in Congress start to cooperate--or lose power after the November elections.=20 "He's ready to work with Congress if they will work with him. But if they choose partisanship, he will choose progress," said Rahm Emanuel, senior policy advisor to the president.=20 The power to issue executive orders originally was intended to give presidents rule-making authority over the executive branch. But many have used it instead for sweeping public policy decisions.=20 Fresh from what aides view as a triumphant trip to China, Clinton is reportedly eager to exercise his executive powers to the hilt.=20 "He always comes back from these trips with a big head of steam, and this trip has been especially remarkable," said Paul Begala, another senior advisor. "This president has a very strong sense of the powers of the presidency, and is willing to use all of them."=20 Mindful of the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the line-item veto authority Clinton won last term, the president also hopes his executive-order offensive will pressure Congress to enact his legislative priorities, Emanuel said. "I am doing what I can to protect our families from contaminated food," Clinton says in the draft of today's radio address. "But Congress must do its part."=20 The latest series of executive orders is illustrative of a president who has used his unilateral authority more robustly and frequently than most of his predecessors.=20 Just last month, after the Senate rejected sweeping anti-smoking legislation, Clinton announced a survey on what cigarette brands teenagers smoke--in hopes of shaming the tobacco companies into getting serious about cutting teen smoking.=20 On the same day, eager to make health care fixes that Congress has not, he announced new coverage under the Medicare health insurance program for the elderly and charged federal agencies with signing up millions more poor children for Medicaid.=20 Some in Congress have argued that Clinton's use of executive authority has gone too far, and several outside critics agree. "Clinton is pushing the envelope," says David Schoenbrod, a professor at New York Law School who is an expert is the field. "He's consistently trying to take more power than Congress gives him.".=20 With most of his executive orders, no matter how incremental, Clinton hopes to prod Congress to pass more ambitious versions. For instance, last year he extended broader family leave provisions for federal employees while pushing Congress to pass legislation to provide similar opportunities for all other workers.=20 Clinton forewarned the country about his zeal for exercising executive powers in his 1992 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, saying: "President Bush: If you won't use your power to help people, step aside, I will."=20 Of course, other presidents have used executive authority to meet their policy goals. Abraham Lincoln used it to declare the slaves free. Franklin D. Roosevelt used it to help set up the New Deal. Harry S. Truman used it to integrate the armed forces.=20 But Clinton has rewritten the manual on how to use executive powers with gusto, some professors and analysts argue. His formula includes pressing the limits of his regulatory authority, signing executive orders and using other unilateral means to obtain his policy priorities when Congress fails to embrace them.=20 Clearly, the growing antagonism between the president and Congress makes it likely that Clinton will continue to govern by fiat.=20 "It depends on the political environment whether presidents push their limits or not," said Marci Hamilton, professor of constitutional law at Cardozo Law School in New York. "Clinton has more incentive to do it because he's stuck with a Congress that is not politically aligned with him."=20 This is all the more true this year, since Congress feels empowered to ignore the president as a result of the legal crisis he faces because of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's investigation.=20 "This president has extraordinary lame-duck status," Hamilton added. "There is very little incentive for Congress to go along with him. A president who has a strong working relationship and looks powerful to Congress is less likely to push the limits."=20 But analysts charge that Congress continues to create the problem by ceding so much authority to the president. In one recent example, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission to subsidize the wiring of schools, libraries and rural health care facilities for high-speed Internet access, but did not provide the money to do so. Now it blames the FCC for passing on costs to telephone companies, which are in turn passing on costs to consumers.=20 "The bottom line is the Congress gave the administration power to do this. But they'd like to have it both ways," said Jeremy Taylor. "They want to say: 'I voted for universal Internet service, but I did not vote for a tax hike to pay for it.' It's this lack of responsibility on the part of Congress that has transformed American politics."=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution.=20 ---Doug McKay" =20 Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! [------------------------- 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: Is Gun Control a Christian Issue? (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1998 21:07:05 PST Some of you might find these arguments usefull. On Jul 04, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] (From http://www.patriarch.com/articles.html -- Patriarch magazine's Web page.) Is Gun Control a Christian Issue? It is not easy to keep a proper balance on issues like gun control. We must approach any public policy issue in a Christ-centered way, with an eye on the cross, or we do, indeed, run the risk of merely parroting the arguments of those whose only hope is in man and his institutions. We have received a number of letters on this subject and some of my brothers in our local fellowship have challenged me on the issue of balance, tone, and keeping a Christ-like attitude in these matters. Let me try to summarize how I see things, with these admonitions in mind. (1) Christians need explicitly Christian arguments on issues. I can see how Larry Pratt=92s article (Patriarch, Issue # 12) would bother some who are looking for a Christian perspective. Mr. Pratt is a godly man and elder in his church, but the piece we reprinted was written for general audiences and contained no explicit references to God or his Word. This will not be the last time we use materials on public policy issues that express what we believe are views consistent with a Christian perspective but which do not make the connection obvious. The problem is that there simply is not much written by Christians who apply the Bible thoughtfully to themes in contemporary society. But we need to add something to make the connection clear, perhaps an introduction to the article or an accompanying piece. (2) Our hope is in God, not in government or guns. One risk in taking seriously issues of public policy like gun control is that we may give the impression that we trust in political solutions to our problems or that we depend on guns for our family protection. This is not the case. Unless the Lord protects our house and watches over our nation, there is nothing we can do (Psalm 127:1). Prayer is always our first responsibility because it expresses where our true hope lies. This, however, does not remove our responsibility to act in other ways that are glorifying to God. (3) Physical defense is a godly man=92s responsibility. God is a defender of the vulnerable (Exod. 22:22-24; Psalm 68:5). Rescuing those who are threatened with harm is commanded by God, and those who fail to act will be judged (Prov. 24:11,12). Abram and David used physical force to rescue their families when they were attacked by enemies (Gen. 14; 1 Sam. 30). The commandment prohibiting murder (Exod. 20:13) suggests a responsibility to oppose those who aim to break this commandment. Inaction is complicity when it is in our power to act. We must "turn the other cheek" to personal offenses and be willing to give up all our rights, as Jesus did. Nowhere, however, does Scripture suggest that we should turn our eyes away and do nothing to protect those who are vulnerable, especially those placed by God under our protection. Keeping and using a gun for the defense of his family is one way a father bears the image of his heavenly Father-Protector. He must trust in God, not his gun; but God may choose to extend his sovereign protection through that gun. God=92s works are often executed through responsible human action. (4) Defense of the Constitution is a godly citizen=92s responsibility. We do not live in Rome under Nero. We live in a constitutional republic. Nero was the law and Christians had no grounds or means to oppose his tyranny. In the United States, the Constitution is the law which every citizen, and especially every public official, is obligated to obey. It is the responsibility of citizens to oppose those who seek to disobey the law of the land, including public officials. Failure to actively uphold the law is failure to submit to the Lord who establishes civil authority. Christian responsibility requires defense of the Second Amendment. To yield to unlawful laws in our system of government is to abdicate the responsibility which God in his providence has placed in our hands. We are not attacking government when we speak out against gun control or in support of the right to form militias; we are defending the highest law of the land from its attackers=97and that is our Christian duty! The influence of Christianity and a biblical world view made this nation possible. We are the first nation to have put the power of civil government (yes, even the power of the sword; Rom. 13:4) ultimately in the hands of the citizens. This was possible because of the character and virtue of our predominately Christian populace. Individual citizens were expected to govern themselves under God=92s law and then, in turn, participate in the governance of the nation. Our form of government is an historical outgrowth of the gospel of Christ. The personal liberty from sin and Satan which Christ grants the individual believer bore fruit in a system of government that was not only founded upon these spiritually free men, but assured their liberty in every sphere of public life. The civil liberty we enjoy in America is a result of the gospel. It is wrong for Christian Americans to revert to a sub-Christian understanding of government, to live as if they were in Rome and sheepishly acquiesce to tyranny. In the United States, the people are in charge, under God; we are responsible for the direction of this nation. I am afraid too many Christians lack the knowledge or the character to act like Christian citizens any more. It is no virtue to suffer persecution when it results from ignorance, cowardice, laziness, or a simple unwillingness to be responsible for the direction of the nation. That would be suffering for our unrighteousness. (5) Armed defense against unlawful tyranny is a last resort. In our system of government each citizen is part of the militia, the armed defenders of liberty. When the King of England broke his word and violated the laws he had promised to observe, the colonists were prepared to defend their nation with arms, but only after every diplomatic recourse had been exhausted. Today we must fight for the Constitution at the ballot box, not with bullets. But we must also assert, as the Constitution does, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and even to organize themselves as citizen militias (which was the whole point of the amendment). And, yes, the government should fear the people. That is just another way of saying that public officials ought to fear breaking their oath to uphold the law. In our republic, the citizens have the final word in defending the law, first at the ballot box, but also with bullets if tyranny should ever proceed that far. (6) Political issues are not our main task, though they ought not be neglected. The church of Jesus Christ has failed miserably in recent years to live out her calling. We have failed in our homes, in our churches, in our communities. We must begin again to proclaim the whole counsel of God, calling all men to the cross of Christ for salvation and to a life of discipleship. Government power has increased as Christians have abdicated responsibility over more and more areas of their lives: education, health care, financial security, care for the needy, etc. Our main task is not to fix the government but to proclaim the cross of Christ and start living like Jesus=92 disciples again in all these areas and more. It is too easy to blame government for our woes and to seek merely political solutions to them. At the same time, we cannot neglect our role as citizens and our stewardship for the direction of the civil government. We just have to keep our priorities in order. "Politics" is just one among many responsibilities of Christ=92s disciples. If we lose our political battles, it=92s no big deal because our hope is in God, not in government. But if we lose them because we neglected ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #92 (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1998 21:06:01 PST On Jul 04, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 5, 1998 #92 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ANY FORM We enjoy watching two old authoritarian Congressmen argue publicly on a Constitutional issue. And, it's especially interesting when they are both wrong. Representative Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, claims that his amendment to HR 1965, "The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act," puts the burden of proof back where it belongs -- with the government. In a "Dear Colleague" letter, Hyde writes in part: "Over the last decade, our two-century old civil asset forfeiture laws have been recruited in the war against crime. The federal government is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in proceeds from cash and property used in criminal activities. Unfortunately, it has become all too apparent in recent years that those civil asset forfeiture laws are sometimes being used in terribly unjust ways, depriving innocent citizens of their property without basic due process. Believe it or not, Federal officials have the power to seize your home, your car, your business and your bank account -- all without indictment, hearing or trial. "Imagine this. You make the mistake of buying an airplane ticket with cash -- behavior that is deemed to fit a drug courier profile -- so you are detained and searched. No drugs are found, but the agents seize the cash in your wallet saying they have "probable cause" to believe that the money was intended to buy drugs. You are allowed to leave and are not charged with any crime, but the agents keep your property. "What recourse do you have to get your property back? Very little, because the law treats the property, rather than you, as the offending object. None of the Constitutional or procedural safeguards of the criminal law are available, because you are not being threatened with a deprivation of liberty. In fact, the law doesn't require that you ever be charged with a crime. You have to prove a negative, that your property was never used in a crime, that it was 'innocent.' But the alleged criminal conduct needn't even involve you -- it could just as easily be a crime allegedly committed by the previous owner of your property, or by someone who, unbeknownst to you, used your property in a criminal endeavor." Lest we forget here, the Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." As we understand the meaning of the words "shall not," the Fourth Amendment is rather straightforward and easy to understand. But, if there is any doubt, the Fifth Amendment carries that thought on a little further, stating: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Legalizing asset forfeiture, then, would make the above words of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments insignificant. Legalizing forfeiture is analogous to providing the police with a general warrant with which to search and seize anything they wish. That is, as we saw, unconstitutional. Throughout the years Hyde, of course, approved forfeiture in numerous bills. For instance, readers may remember that he gave us that wonderfully crafted piece of unconstitutional legislation called the Anti-terrorist Act. Anyway, along comes Representative Gerald Solomon, chairman of the Rules Committee. Solomon's "Dear Colleague" sounds like he believes the government owns everything and can take back whatever it wants. He complains that Hyde's amendment would: Elevate the burden of proof on the Government to the "clear and convincing evidence" standard; take money from the Assets Forfeiture Fund to pay for defense counsel; allow criminals to protect their ill-gotten property by transferring it to third parties such as spouses, minor children and friends; and, give seized property back to the defendant, pending trial -- allowing it to be depleted or hidden. "Because of these provisions," Solomon writes, "there is not a single law enforcement organization that supports the manager's amendment. In addition, the Clinton Administration is adamantly opposed to Chairman Hyde's bill." Yeah. No doubt. Law enforcement will miss all that money they have been stealing from people. One little known fact is that it is not just the departments that benefit from the money. Many police officers around the country have been supplementing their personal incomes with a little unauthorized forfeiture, too. In any form, forfeiture is thievery under color of law. H.R. 1965 can be found at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.1965: CLINTON'S PREPARATION Much has been written here, and in other publications, about Clinton's Executive Order (13083, dated May 14, 1998) on Federalism and there is no need to repeat that. However, when we compared Clinton's order line by line with Ronald Reagan's Executive Order on Federalism (12612, dated October 12, 1987), we couldn't help but notice that Clinton may have had a very specific reason for issuing his order and repealing Reagan's. Throughout Section 2, Reagan ordered that "There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles." Reagan instructed that "Federal oversight of State administration is neither necessary nor desirable." And he added a number of limits to the regulation process that would protect States rights. For Instance, in Section 2(g) President Reagan orders: "Acts of the national government -- whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature -- that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers." In Section 2(i) Reagan ordered: "In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, the presumption of sovereignty should rest with the individual States. Uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government should be resolved against regulation at the national level." By voiding President Reagan's order, Clinton removed most of the constraints on federal agencies in relation to State governments. Federal agencies are to be free to do as they wish. We still have the words written in the Constitution itself, of course. But lately, no one in Washington even refers to the Constitution unless it happens to benefit a personal argument. For reference, readers may find both Executive Orders at: http://www.uhuh.com/laws/list-law.htm So, why did Clinton gut the Federalism concept so imbedded in our American history and allow federal agencies to ride roughshod over State governments? For clarification, we have to look to the specific definition of 'agency' Clinton referenced in his Executive Order. 44 USC 3502 reads in part: "The term 'agency' means any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency." Well, well, well . . . we see that now the military may promulgate rules and regulations of national impact. Yeah, the military; as in Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. The full text of tone of the duties God has given us, we will answer to Him for it. (7) Christian Americans need to study the Founding Fathers. Our Christian forefathers did not have our ambivalence about being Christians and citizens. They did not think it contradictory for Christian men to talk of the Gospel of Christ in one breath and the need for war in the next. They spoke of both without tension because they saw both as matters of Christian responsibility. They saw that war can be an application of the gospel, a Christian response to unlawful tyranny. The gospel asserts the authority of the resurrected, ascended and reigning Jesus; and maintenance of a lawful civil order (established by God) is an expression of our allegiance to our Lord and King. Patrick Henry wrote: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Larry Pratt=92s articl= e reminded us of how it was Patrick Henry who gathered the militia to oppose the unlawful acts of the British Governor in Virginia=97and issued his stirring call to arms in a church! This is the same man who cried, "Give me liberty or give me death." Those words could be spoken by a godless man concerned only with his "right" to do as he pleased. However, what the Christian patriot meant was (in expansive paraphrase): "I am willing to die to uphold the lawful order of civil government which God, in His providence, has established in this nation, an order which allows maximum liberty to self-governing Christians." I fear too many Christian men today would think it virtuous to choose death rather than fight for the liberty God has granted us under law. We are losing our country because we have forgotten what we have inherited, because we have a weak and feminized view of what it means to be Christian citizens. A generation of Christian men raised on such simplistic caricatures as "tender Jesus, meek and mild" would scold Patrick Henry were he alive today, speaking and acting as he did before. We need to rediscover the robust and manly faith that embraced the tender mercies of the gospel in one hand and the fearful responsibilities of godly citizenship in the other. They are not contradictory; they are both part of a Christian man=92s calling. In fact, given America's origins and civil structure, we could say that our citizenship responsibilities are a direct outgrowth of the gospel of Christ in history. We talk about gun control because we believe it is part of how we express our allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord=97Lord even of our nation, and our= guns. [------------------------- 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 ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - he law is at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/44/3502.shtml Read it and weep. It appears we've been hoodwinked by the Slickster. There's even more though: A few members of Congress are upset about the War and Emergency Powers laws Clinton has available to him. The background buzz is that they mean to change those laws as soon as possible. Under the law today, only the president may declare a national emergency, and only the president may end one. Worse, during a national emergency, the president wields nearly dictatorial powers. This very same arrangement was allowed by Article 48 of the German Constitution in the 1930's. That was how the German President -- Hitler -- was able to suspend the Constitution by presidential decree alone. Many Americans believe we should repeal those war and emergency power laws before we end up with a dictator, too. Already, federal agencies operate like little Soviet Politburos. FEMA is no different. In fact, in any type of major emergency, FEMA actually becomes a real American Politburo! It is responsible to no one, other than the president. And, it has full authority to control everything, other than the president. And remember, under Clinton's new Executive Order, the military, which will be under direct control of FEMA, can also promulgate regulations. Convenient, isn't it. Looking a little deeper: Today, the Director of FEMA is none other than Clinton's Arkansas crony James Lee Witt. Witt was a high ranking Arkansas State Police officer before moving to FEMA. He was also profiled in a number of publications as being instrumental in the cover- up of the Clinton's Whitewater affair. For some reason, the White House is centralizing power and allowing the federal 'agencies' (including FEMA and the military) unprecedented power over State and local governments -- and hence, the American people. This is all quite unconstitutional, of course. Nevertheless, if Clinton declares martial law under guise of a national emergency no one, except the military, could stop him. The craven Congress is, of course, collectively sitting on one hand and covering its mouth with the other. Obviously, there will be no support for our Constitution in Congress unless we force it. NOTE: We thank the many people who forwarded us a copy of their letters to Congress on this issue. As always, we recommend sending a simple message on a postcard; such as: Remove Clinton's Executive Order on Federalism, and restore Reagan's, or we will not be desiring your services in Congress any longer. It's interesting how that type of message works in an election year. GOOD COURT, BAD COURT Some police are of the opinion that they can stop and search anyone at any time (like at airports), but the courts are starting to disagree. In Norwood v. Bain last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a lower court decision that mass searches of motorcyclists were unconstitutional. However, the court said that videotaping them during a license check was permissible. The problem started in September 1995, during a fundraising event for the Piedmont Red Cross sponsored by ABATE, a motorcycle enthusiast organization. As the bikers entered the Piedmont Fairgrounds, each of the approximately 500 attendees were required by the City of Spartanburg Police to show identification. They were also videotaped, and some of them were required to fill out questionnaires and submit to a search of their possessions. The police, of course, gave no explanation for their actions at the time. Later, the police department used the excuse that it heard rumors that gang members from Pagans and Hells Angels planned to clash at the event. The two motorcycle gangs have a history of fighting but, of course, neither group attended the charity fundraising event. Under the sponsorship of the ACLU, Columbia civil rights attorneys W. Gaston Fairey and Rochelle Romosca McKee filed suit against the Spartanburg Police Department on behalf of more than 100 of the motorcyclists who had been detained and searched. "We are pleased the court again found that searching a motorist without probable cause of wrongdoing violates the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizures," said Steven Bates, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina. This is a good win for the ACLU and the area's outstanding citizens who also like to ride motorcycles. Police may stop drivers and ask for a license, says the court. They may also videotape the process if they have equipment available. But, that is as far as it goes. No searches. Darn. That's almost Constitutional. . . . . We do not agree, however, with another American Civil Liberties Union case settled last month. The National Capital Area ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of a group of D.C. children and their parents, which they laud as a grand victory for the rights of kids and families. In 1995, the D.C. government passed a curfew law for kids. The law prohibited children under age 17 from being in any public place or private establishment between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays, and between midnight at 6 a.m. on weekends. In a 2-1 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, affirmed a lower-court decision that permanently prohibited enforcement of the curfew. All three judges issued separate opinions. However, the majority agreed that although the city had a strong interest in preventing juvenile crime, there was no good reason to believe that the curfew law would have any significant impact on that problem, and it would seriously infringe on the basic right of liberty. "The enactment of the curfew law created a new casualty in the 'war' against crime -- the Bill of Rights," said Robert Plotkin, an attorney at the D.C. law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker who handled the case for the ACLU. "The court's ruling today restores it to life." The court, therefore, allows every juvenile delinquent in the city to run wild all night long -- and D.C. has an abundance of juvenile delinquents. And by the way, since when did children get liberty? Have American kids suddenly been emancipated? Kids need rest in order to do well in school. The neighborhood needs peace and quite at night so working people can rest. And the government has a duty to keep these kids safe and away from the riffraff lurking in the shadows at night. Many children in "murder capital USA" will die because of this ruling. And at least half of them will be innocent bystanders. Children need strong supervision and direction, not liberty. THE FAILED DRUG WAR A June 8 press release from the "Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America" caught our eye for many reasons. One reason, of course, is because illegal drug use among junior high and high school kids has nearly doubled under the Clinton Administration. The Committee Chairman is J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL); an the Co-Chairmen are Rob Portman (R-OH) & Bill McCollum (R-FL). The press release states in part: "In comments to regional economic leaders in DeKalb and Sycamore, Congressman J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) stated, 'The Congress is committed to a World War II-style battleplan to win the War on Drugs from the grassroots up. We are combining national leadership with community activism. In late April, our 36-member Task Force deployed a legislative battleplan to win the War on Drugs on three major fronts: deterring demand because prevention starts at home; stopping supply because it is our duty to control our borders; and, increasing accountability because everyone must be held responsible for their actions.'" Interesting rhetoric, but there are a few problems with that statement. The Congressman is correct. It is definitely their Constitutional duty to control our borders. But that is a failed duty! Our borders are like a sieve. Thousands of illegal aliens enter this country daily. Illegal drugs enter by the ton. Interdiction procedures for both illegal aliens and drugs are a joke, and everyone in Congress knows that. Then he said, "increasing accountability because everyone must be held responsible for their actions." That's the scary part. From coast to coast, police harass thousands of innocent people every day in the name of the 'war on drugs.' All Congress is doing is adding yet more laws and creating a police state. We have more Americans in prison per capita than any country in the world. Yet, illegal drugs are still plentiful in Anytown, USA. As the war on illegal alcohol was lost years ago, so too is the war on illegal drugs lost today. More laws are useless. Congress must accept this, because the collateral damage produced by this war on drugs has become totally unacceptable. Hastert noted, "While the President talks about the drug problem, the Congress is taking necessary action to win the War on Drugs. I hope that as our legislative agenda continues to advance on Capitol Hill that the President joins our national commitment by signing these bills into law. Quite frankly, I'm somewhat encouraged that the White House is recognizing the need to fight on both the demand side and supply side and hopefully we'll get them to add accountability to the fight. But more than that, we need action, not just words, when it comes to this Administration's drug war." No, we need police foot patrols around schools and in those neighborhoods with continuing open-air drug bazaars. That works. We also need to close our borders, and allow any sworn peace officer in the country to apprehend illegal aliens wherever found. Then we need to decriminalize some of the less addictive street drugs and save prison space for violent criminals. The Drug-Free Border Act of 1998 promises to add more than 1,700 border agents and increases funding for drug-screening equipment and resources along our borders. That is a step in the right direction, but only a small step. Much more is needed. Hastert concluded, "In just over a month, we've already passed five bills and we're well on our way over the next few weeks to passing the rest. The bottom line, though, is that this battle must start with mothers and fathers, teachers and preachers, civic leaders and others all working together to win the War on Drugs to protect our kids. The Congress will help provide national leadership to facilitate work with folks at home so local solutions can be developed to beat this national problem." Congress introduced 11 new anti-drug bills this round. That is not "providing leadership." That is little more than heaping more bad law on an already bad situation. The federal government should stay out of the personal lives of the American people. Rather, the government must concentrate on its duty of protecting our borders. In summary, the federal government has become a wayward employee. It's time "We the People" start holding federal officials accountable. Instead of the federal government inflicting many thousands of pages of unnecessary and oppressive laws rules and regulations on the American people annually, it is time the central government gets back to doing those things mandated to it by its job description: The Constitution. At this point, nothing else should be acceptable to the American people. -- End - The TIME Magazine poll on guns needs some attention from freedom loving Americans. Vote early and vote often. http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.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: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: article on NRA convention Date: 06 Jul 1998 15:12:16 +0500 If anybody's interested in my take on the annual convention in Philly last month, it's on my website. http://home1.gte.net/1911a1/nra-con.htm Brad Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 "GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: article on NRA convention Date: 08 Jun 1998 14:42:58 -0700 First I've heard of -half- of this, and a great site to peruse. Loved the picture of the camo-clad militia member protesting a Klan rally in MO : ). I assume that's you Brad, I plan to run it out the color printer and give some copies to Seattle Liberal friends. I love seeing their cherubic little faces light up with confusion : ) (But, gee wilickers, the president says the militia -is- the klan...) -Boyd >If anybody's interested in my take on the annual convention in Philly >last month, it's on my website. > >http://home1.gte.net/1911a1/nra-con.htm > >Brad > >Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 > >"GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction > in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up >gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: article on NRA convention Date: 06 Jul 1998 17:13:03 +0500 > From: Boyd Kneeland > First I've heard of -half- of this, and a great site to peruse. Loved the > picture of the camo-clad militia member protesting a Klan rally in MO : ). > I assume that's you Brad, I plan to run it out the color printer and give > some copies to Seattle Liberal friends. I love seeing their cherubic little > faces light up with confusion : ) (But, gee wilickers, the president says > the militia -is- the klan...) -Boyd Thanks, Boyd! Yeah, that's yours truly in the pic. We got *great* media that day, with crews from all 4 local network TV affiliates interviewing us and doing some positive reporting. You're in or near Seattle? Will I be meeting you at the Gun Rights Policy Conference September 18-20? Brad Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 "GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: article on NRA convention Date: 06 Jul 1998 16:45:33 -0700 Abso-lutely! Look for the formerly long haired geek with the CLAW name badge. I'm hoping other list members will show up to that too, maybe we can even get together for a roc/grpc/claw version of "wine and brie" : ) (burgers n brew? tall tales and nat'l review? OK I'll stop there). -"Boyd in Bellevue" (ranting on finer call in shows throughout the Pugetopolis area) At 5:13 PM +0500 7/6/98, Brad Alpert wrote: >> From: Boyd Kneeland > >> First I've heard of -half- of this, and a great site to peruse. Loved the >> picture of the camo-clad militia member protesting a Klan rally in MO : ). >> I assume that's you Brad, I plan to run it out the color printer and give >> some copies to Seattle Liberal friends. I love seeing their cherubic little >> faces light up with confusion : ) (But, gee wilickers, the president says >> the militia -is- the klan...) -Boyd > >Thanks, Boyd! > >Yeah, that's yours truly in the pic. We got *great* media that day, >with crews from all 4 local network TV affiliates interviewing us and >doing some positive reporting. > >You're in or near Seattle? Will I be meeting you at the Gun Rights >Policy Conference September 18-20? > >Brad > >Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 > >"GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction > in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up >gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Roy is gone Date: 06 Jul 1998 16:31:24 PST For those who haven't heard, a wonderful man has up and gone to meet his Lord this morning. Leonard Sly(sp?), AKA "Roy Rodgers, King of the Cowboys" of '30's-'40's movie and '50's TV fame, died of a heart attack this morning at age 86. Happy Trails Roy. -- ***** 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: article on NRA convention Date: 06 Jul 1998 19:00:24 +0500 > From: Boyd Kneeland > Abso-lutely! Look for the formerly long haired geek with the CLAW name badge. > > I'm hoping other list members will show up to that too, maybe we can even > get together for a roc/grpc/claw version of "wine and brie" : ) (burgers n > brew? tall tales and nat'l review? OK I'll stop there). > -"Boyd in Bellevue" (ranting on finer call in shows throughout the > Pugetopolis area) Yeah! There's be a nice bar at the hotel, count on that. SAF does good work :) Brad Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 "GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: JFK PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1998 00:14:56 PST On Jul 8, Greg Krawchuk wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] You can get a hold of the people who have done decades of research on monetary matters. "Michael" Journal,1101 Principale St.,Rougemont, Quebec, Canada J0L 1M0 Montreal (514) 856-5714; Rougemont (514) 469-2209; Fax (514)469-2601 Greg Krawchuk ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND JOHN F. KENNEDY John F Kennedy No United States president since Abraham Lincoln dared to go against the system and create his own money, as many of these so called elected presidents were actually only instruments or puppets of the Bankers. That is until President John F Kennedy came into Office. President Kennedy was not afraid to buck the system for he understood how the Federal Reserve System was being used to destroy the United States. As a just and honorable man, he could not tolerate such a system, for it smelled of corruption from A to Z. Certainly he must have known about the Greenbacks which Abraham Lincoln created when he was in office. On June 4th, 1963. President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Executive Order 11210, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an interest and debt free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve. Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was perfectly obvious that Kennedy was out to undermine the Federal Reserve System of the United States. But it was only a few months later, in November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. No reason was given, of course, for anyone wanting to commit such an atrocious crime. But for those who knew anything about money and banking, it did not take long to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For surely President Kennedy must have had it in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money. It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes which Kennedy had issued were called out of circulation. Was this through an executive order of the newly installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? Was President Johnson afraid of the Bankers? Or was he one of their instruments? At any rate all of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people. A Lesson To Learn There is much that can be learned from our past history. Here we are in 1997, and the United States is still operating under the Federal Reserve System. It has already plunged our country over five trillion dollars into debt, a debt it will never be able to pay and has been responsible for every kind of corruption imaginable. Yet, barely a peep of protest can be heard from the American people. All the Bankers have to do to keep their power is to get rid of the few politicians who are honestly working for a reform in our economic system, and the people at large remain ignorant and controlled. It is obvious the American people need to be awakened to the truth. The population at large must be educated on the Federal Reserve, and then unite together to put pressure on the Government to get the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 repealed. Otherwise it will spell disaster for the United States. There can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice without a reform in our economic system, for the financiers are behind all the corruption in our Government. Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy both had the courage to stand up for principles and to fight for justice. They have both gone down in history as being true patriots of the United States. But do we citizens have the courage to follow their example? Note: In Canada, the numbers are different, the story is the same. Melvin Sickler [------------------------- 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: more on: Trading Rights for Politics (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1998 09:10:17 PST On Jul 8, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Jerry Stratton wrote: > At 9:00 PM -0400 on 7/7/98, you wrote: >=20 > >Interesting feedback from my earlier comments. I don't know that this is= the > >right choice for such a challenge, but the underlying concept is a good = one. >=20 > I think that this, assuming that Clinton goes ahead with his other > executive orders, would be a good opportunity to try and join up with oth= er > groups and put congressional oversight into EOs and regulatory unlaws. > Wasn't there some bill in Congress to require congressional approval for > all non-law laws? This is all a mute point. A bill was introduced that said all bills would have to define the legal foundation of is power from the Constitution. In other words where in the Constitution did the Congress have legal authority for this pending law. It failed. Congress was not about to stop all the illegal bills they pass. Also the Executive orders passed a Supreme Court case. Its power is codified in 50 USC United States Code, the war powers acts. This has been in effect from WWII and with the Red scare of 1950's was continued by Truman and every other Congress and Administration. Sorry dont have the case name but the court said that in effect it was a political not legal issue, that as long as Congress wanted to give the president these war powers they could and Congress always has the political power to take them back.=20 * U.S.C. TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE + CHAPTER 34 - NATIONAL EMERGENCIES o SUBCHAPTER II - DECLARATIONS OF FUTURE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES =20 =20 =A7 1622. National emergencies * (a) Termination methods =20 Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if - + (1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or + (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency. Any national emergency declared by the President shall be terminated on the date specified in any joint resolution referred to in clause (1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection, whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by reason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified date, except that such termination shall not affect - o (A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date; o (B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or o (C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date. * (b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress =20 Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated. * (c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate + (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays. + (2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays. + (3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays. + (4) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such joint resolution within six calendar days after the day on which managers on the part of the Senate and the House have been appointed. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed in the House in which such report is filed first. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within forty-eight hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. + (5) Paragraphs (1)-(4) of this subsection, subsection (b) of this section, and section 1651(b) of this title are enacted by Congress - o (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House in the case of resolutions described by this subsection; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and o (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. * (d) Automatic termination of national emergency; continuation notice from President to Congress; publication in Federal Register Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary. [------------------------- 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: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Congressional E-mail addresses Date: 08 Jul 1998 11:56:52 -0700 Jack, I have an ancient listing of congressional e-mail addresses which you put out a couple of years ago; however, the House and Senate have changed their e-mail format and these messages are no longer good. Do you have an up-to-date list handy for forwarding. I know I can look it up on the web, but I'm having problems staying connected with my ISP and I get cut off in the middle of all but the shortest web searches. Thanks in advance. Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: RE: Congressional E-mail addresses Date: 08 Jul 1998 11:41:36 -0700 On Wednesday, July 08, 1998 11:57 AM, Skip Leuschner [SMTP:skipl@pacifier.com] wrote: > Jack, > > I have an ancient listing of congressional e-mail addresses which > you put out a couple of years ago; however, the House and Senate > have changed their e-mail format and these messages are no longer > good. > > Do you have an up-to-date list handy for forwarding. Sorry!No! Jack > > I know I can look it up on the web, but I'm having problems > staying connected with my ISP and I get cut off in the middle > of all but the shortest web searches. > > Thanks in advance. > > Skip. > > > > - Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming | 626 - 798- 6574 ----------------- | 1175 N Altadena Dr | ------------------- Jack@Minerva.com | Pasadena, Ca 91107 | FAX 398 8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun Poll (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1998 18:19:51 PST On Jul 08, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] We are getting hammered here too http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.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: Paul M Watson Subject: FWD: Why We Will Fight, #13 (fwd) Date: 09 Jul 1998 07:32:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by Paul M Watson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Why We Will Fight, #13 4 July 1998 In This Issue: ** Independence Day: The Declaration & What It Cost ** And From The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page of All Places: "Statesmanship and Its Betrayal" By Mark Helprin An Eloquent Indictment of An Administration and a Generation. *************************************** "The sentiments of men are known, not only by what they receive, but what they reject also." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1776. "Times like this call up genius which slept before and stimulate it in action." -- David Ramsey. Some Independence Day Musings from the Editor: There is a new fad abroad in the land, out past where the impulse of resistance to tyranny trips on the twin strands of intellectual barbed wire named inferiority complex and half-baked analysis. This fad, part defiance, part defeatist, is exemplified by individual "Declarations of Independence" as well as separatist movements such as the Republic of Texas and the "Great White Northwest" fallacy. Such public gestures of weakness and futility make for poor television (witness the ROT debacle) and even poorer principle. They presuppose that we, the defenders of the American Republic as envisioned by the Founders, cannot win the national political argument over whether the Constitution shall remain as the basis of our government (as opposed to the oligarchic statist empire the Clintonistas and their backers would impose upon us). We have lost the ability to win in the larger theatre, these defeatists seem to say, so let us retreat to our "redoubts" (of whatever kind) and die gloriously to the last man, the last woman, the last child, or at least, the last fax machine. The only thing surprising about such faux-Alamos is that their proponents are surprised that so few of their fellow Americans (who are, after all, mostly an eminently sensible people) are willing to follow them to defeatist glory or ignominious federal lockup. This is what comes of self-made "Generals" seeking personal Waterloos without first checking that they have an army to fight with. I have always been amused by that brand of Texan who declaims "Remember the Alamo!" when the call "Remember San Jacinto!" would be more appropriate. Of course it is easier to die in battle for your country and your cause than it is to stay alive, get organized and win the war for those very things. That is the seductive thing about such schemes. They play to our best attributes (courage, defiance against all odds, self-sacrifice) as well as to our darker qualities (self-doubt, laziness, inability to see the larger picture). Many's the Texan who knows every detail of Travis, Bowie and Crockett at the Alamo, yet gets a little fuzzy about Sam Houston, who despite disobedient subordinates finally won Texas independence at San Jacinto. I wonder why it is that no one then or today declaims "Remember Goliad!": where another disobedient Houston subordinate surrendered his command to Santa Ana only to have them all slaughtered as helpless prisoners. The commander who sees only the terrain and the enemy before him has already lost his own battle and contributes nothing to the successful conclusion of his cause apart from increasing the martyrs' list. Whether it is self-defeating separatist standoffs, criminal schemes wrapped in a "patriot" blanket such as the Freemen or individual breast-beating "Declarations of Independence" the result is the same-- a by-now-discredited practice of individual sacrifice without advancing the larger cause. It is the political equivalent of public masturbation: it may make the practitioner feel good temporarily, but it makes the neighbors stare, offends their sensiblilities and causes them to hide their children. In addition, they usually call the cops. It also makes no babies, if offspring are what you're after. I have no need of another Declaration of Independence, individual or otherwise, nor do any other Americans serious about restoring our constitutional Republic-- the Founder's took care of that for us, on another Fourth of July long ago. If I have need of reassuring myself as to Why We Will Fight to defend our right to the free exercise of arms, I will refer to that source document of American liberty, rather than presume to make up my own. The names have changed (instead of King George the Third of England, we now have King William the Worst of Arkansas, Master of the Executive Order), but the greivances of liberty-loving Americans and the means for their redress are the same. Such eternal principles, and what they cost, are the subject of the two articles reprinted below. The first piece was forwarded to me by Arlin Adams, who got it from Matt Anderson, who got it from Kenneth Emmanuelson (my thanks to all, and gee, ain't the Internet wonderful? And powerful? No wonder Al Gore wants to get his hands on it.) It should be read today of all days, not just to better appreciate our ancestor's sacrifices, but to gauge our own willingness to give all that their sacrifices shall not have been in vain. The second essay, a speech really, is by Mark Helprin and was originally given to the Shavano Institute of Hillsdale College. It was reprinted in the form below on Thursday's Wall Street Journal editorial page, of all places. It enunciates some of those timeless principles dealt with by the Founders, and is an indictment of the present Administration and the generation of Americans which tolerates and supports it. It is eloquent beyond the exquisite. I wish I could write half as well. It is a fitting gift to our readers on this Independence Day. -- Mike Vanderboegh, 1ACR Editor, Why We Will Fight and The John Doe Times My Motto: "Trust in the Lord, Walk in the Light, Speak the Truth, Carry a 45, and Count On Competent Fire Support." 4th of July: What Happened to the Signers? Date: 98-07-03 04:16:37 EDT Reply-To: Kenneth Emanuelson X-Archives: As we head into the 4th of July it is important that we remember what the holiday is actually about... and what others gave up so we might enjoy freedom today. The story below tells what happened to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. What Happened to the Signers? Five signers were captured by the British and brutally tortured as traitors. Nine fought in the War for Independence and died from wounds or from hardships they suffered. Two lost their sons in the Continental Army. Another two had sons captured. At least a dozen of the fifty-six had their homes pillaged and burned. What kind of men were they? Twenty-five were lawyers or jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers or large plantation owners. One was a teacher, one a musician, and one a printer. These were men of means and education, yet they signed the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured. In the face of the advancing British Army, the Continental Congress fled from Philadelphia to Baltimore on December 12, 1776. It was an especially anxious time for John Hancock, the President, as his wife had just given birth to a baby girl. Due to the complications stemming from the trip to Baltimore, the child lived only a few months. William Ellery's signing at the risk of his fortune proved only too realistic. In December 1776, during three days of British occupation of Newport, Rhode Island, Ellery's house was burned, and all his property destroyed. Richard Stockton, a New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice, had rushed back to his estate near Princeton after signing the Declaration of Independence to find that his wife and children were living like refugees with friends. They had been betrayed by a Tory sympathizer who also revealed Stockton's own whereabouts. British troops pulled him from his bed one night, beat him and threw him in jail where he almost starved to death. When he was finally released, he went home to find his estate had been looted, his possessions burned, and his horses stolen. Judge Stockton had been so badly treated in prison that his health was ruined and he died before the war's end. His surviving family had to live the remainder of their lives off charity. Carter Braxton was a wealthy planter and trader. One by one his ships were captured by the British navy. He loaned a large sum of money to the American cause; it was never paid back. He was forced to sell his plantations and mortgage his other properties to pay his debts. Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he had to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Continental Congress without pay, and kept his family in hiding. Vandals or soldiers or both looted the properties of Clymer, Hall, Harrison, Hopkinson and Livingston. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Thomas Heyward, Jr., Edward Rutledge and Arthur Middleton, all of South Carolina, were captured by the British during the Charleston Campaign in 1780. They were kept in dungeons at the St. Augustine Prison until exchanged a year later. At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the family home for his headquarters. Nelson urged General George Washington to open fire on his own home. This was done, and the home was destroyed. Nelson later died bankrupt. Francis Lewis also had his home and properties destroyed. The British jailed his wife for two months, and that and other hardships from the war so affected her health that she died only two years later. "Honest John" Hart, a New Jersey farmer, was driven from his wife's bedside when she was near death. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. Hart's fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For over a year he eluded capture by hiding in nearby forests. He never knew where his bed would be the next night and often slept in caves. When he finally returned home, he found that his wife had died, his children disappeared, and his farm and stock were completely destroyed. Hart himself died in 1779 without ever seeing any of his family again. Such were the stories and sacrifices typical of those who risked everything to sign the Declaration of Independence. These men were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." * * * The story comes from http://www.self-gov.org/liberator/ ================== Matt Anderson - Patent Attorney - anderson@airmail.net "Americans, indeed all free men, remember that in the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1953 ************************************************* Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 2, 1998 "Statesmanship and Its Betrayal" By Mark Helprin When Marco Polo entered Xanadu, the capital of the great Khan, he crossed.... (see attachment for complete file.) 
Why We Will Fight, #13 Attachment #1  The
Wall Street Journal Thursday, July 2,
1998 "Statesmanship and Its
Betrayal" By
Mark Helprin When Marco Polo entered Xanadu, the capital of the Great Khan,
he crossed ring after ring of outer city, each more splendid and
interesting than the one that had come before.  He was used to greatness
of scale, having traveled to the limits of the ordered world and then
twice as far into the unknown, where no European had ever set foot, over
the Hindu Kush and beyond the Pamir, and through the immense, empty
deserts of Central Asia.  And yet after passing through the world's most
ethereal regions he was impressed above all by Xanadu, a city of seemingly
infinite expanse, the end of which he could not see no matter in which
direction he looked. 

For almost 1,000 years, this city floated at the peak of Western
imagination.  Unlike Jersualem, it had vanished.  Unlike Atlantis, someone
had actually seen it.  Even during the glory of the British Empire,
Coleridge held it out for envy.  But no more.  Now it has been eclipsed,
with ease, by this, our country, founded not as a Xanadu but with the
greatest humility, and on the scale of yeomen and their small farms, and
as the cradle of simple gifts. 

This country was not expected to be what it became.  It was expected to be
infinite-seeming in its rivers, prairies and stars, not in cities with
hundreds of millions of rooms, passages, halls, and buildings a
quarter-mile high.  It was expected to be rich in natural silence and the
quality of light rather than in uncountable dollars.  It was expected to
be a place of unfathomable numbers, but of blades of grass and grains of
wheat and the crags of mountains, rather than miliions upon millions of
motors spinning and humming at any one time, and wheels turning, fires
burning, voices talking and lights shining. 

But this great inventory of machines, buildings, bridges, vehicles and an
incomprehensible number of smaller things, is what we have.  A nation
founded according to a vision of simplicity has become complex.  A nation
founded with disdain for power has become the most powerful nation. 

The Essential Qualities When letters took a month by sea and the
records of the U.S. government could be moved in a single wagon pulled by
two horses, we had great statesmanship.  We had men of integrity and
genius:  Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and
Monroe.  These were men who were in love with principle as if it were an
art, which, in their practice, they made it, They studied empires that had
fallen, for the sake of doing what was right in a small country that had
barely risen, and were able to see things so clearly that they surpassed
in greatness each and every one of the classical models that they had
approached in awe. 

Now, lost in the sins and complexity of a Xanadu, when we desperately need
their high qualities of thought, their patience for deliberation, and
their unerring sense of balance, we have only what we have. 

Which is a political class that in the main has abandoned the essential
qualities of statemanship, with the excuse that these are inappropriate to
our age.  They are wrong.  Not only do they fail to honor the principles
of statesmanship, they fail to recognize them, having failed to learn
them, having failed to have wanted to learn them. 

In the main, they are in it for themselves.  Were they not, they would
have a higher rate of attrition, falling with the colors of what they
believe rather than landing always on their feet-- adroitly, but in
dishonor.  In light of their vows and responsibilities, this constitutes
not merely a failure but a betrayal, and not only of statesmanship and
principle but of country and kin. 

And why is that?  It is because things matter.  Even though it be played
like a game, by men who excel at making it a game, our life in this
country, our history in this country, the sacrifices that have been made
for this country, the lives that have been given to this country, are not
a game.  My life is not a game.  My children's lives are not a game.  My
parents' lives were not a game.  Your life is not a game. 

Yes, it is true, we do have great accumulated stores-- of power, and
wealth, and decency-- against which those who pretend to lead us can draw
when as a result of their vanity and ineptitude they waste and expend the
gifts of previous generations.  The margin of error bequeathed to them
allows them to present their failures as successes. 

They say, "As we are still standing, and a chicken is in the pot, what
does it matter if I break the links between action and consequence, work
and reward, crime and punishment, merit and advancement?  I myself cannot
imagine a military threat (and never could), so what does it matter if I
weld shut the silo hatches on our ballistic missle submarines?  What does
it matter if I weld shut my eyes to weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of lunatics who are building long-range missles?  Our jurisprudence
is the envy of the world, so what does it matter if, now and then, I
perjure myself, a little?  What is an oath?  What is a pledge?  What is a
sacred trust?  Are not these things the province of the kinds of people
who were foolish enough to do without all their lives, to wear ruts into
the Oregon Trail, to brave the seas, to die on the beaches of Normandy and
Iwo Jima and on the battlefields of Shiloh and Antietam, for me, so that I
can draw from America's great accounts, and look good, and be
presidential, and have fun, in all kinds of ways?" 

Blood Onto Sand  That is what they say, if not in words then, indelibly, in
actions.  They who, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, present themselves as
payers and forget that they are also robbers.  They who, with studied
compassion, minister to some of us at the expense of others.  They who
make goodness and charity a public profession, depending for their
election upon a well-mannered embrace of these things and the power to
move them not from within themselves or by their own sacrifices but, by
compulsion, from others.  They who, knowing very little or next to
nothing, take pride in eagerly telling everyone else what to do. They who
believe absolutely in their recitation of pieties not because they believe
in the pieties but because they believe in themselves. 

Nearly 400 years of America's hard-earned accounts-- the principles we
established, the battles we fought, the morals we upheld for century after
century, our very humility before God-- now flow promiscuously through our
hands, like blood onto sand, squandered and laid waste by a generation
that imagines history to have been but a prelude for what it itself will
accomplish, More than a pity, more than a shame, such a thing is
despicable.  And yet, this parlous condition, this agony of weak men, this
betrayal and this disgusting show, are not the end of things. 

Principles are eternal.  They stem not from our resolution or lack of it
but from elsewhere, where in patient and infinite ranks they simply wait
to be called.  They can be read in history.  They arise as if of their own
accord when in the face of danger natural courage comes into play and
honor and defiance are born.  Things such as courage and honor are the
mortal equivalent of certain laws written throughout the universe.  The
rules of symmetry and proportion, the laws of physics, the perfection of
mathematics, even the principle of uncertainty, are encouragement,
entirely independent of the vagaries of human will, that not only natural
law but our own best aspirations have a life of their own.  They have
lasted through far greater abuse than abuses them now.  They can be
neglected, but they cannot be lost.  They can be thrown down, but they
cannot be broken. 

Each of them is a different expression of a single quality, from which
each arises in its hour of need.  Some come to the fore, as others stay
back, and then, with changing circumstance, those that have gone unnoticed
rise to the occasion.  Rise to the occasion.  The principle suggests
itself from a phrase, and such principles suggest easily and flow
generously.  You can grab them out of the air, from phrases, from
memories, from images. 

A statesman must rise to the occasion.  Even Democrats can do this.  Harry
Truman had the discipline of plowing a straight row 10, 12 and 14 hours a
day, of rising and retiring with the sun, of struggling with tempermental
machinery, of suffering heat and cold and one injury after another.  After
a short time on the farm, presumptions about ruling others tend to vanish. 
It is as if you are pulled to earth and held there. 

The man who works the land is hard put to think that he would direct
armies and nations.  Truman understood the grave responsibility of being
the president of the United States, and that it was a task too great for
him or anyone else to accomplish without doing a great deal of injury-- if
not to some, then to others.  He understood that, therefore, he had to
transcend himself.  There would be little enjoyment of the job, because he
had to be always aware of the enormous consequences of everything he did. 
Contrast this with the unspeakably vulgar pleasure in office of President
Clinton. 

Truman, absolutely certain that the mantle he assumed was far greater than
he could ever be, was continually and deliberately aware of the weight of
history, the accomplishments of his predecessors, and, by humble
projection, his own inadequacy.  The sobriety and care that derived from
this allowed him a rare privilege for modern presidents, to give to the
presidency more than he took from it.  It is not possible to occupy the
Oval Office without arrogantly looting its assets or nobly adding to them. 
May God bless the president who adds to them, and may God damn the
president who loots them. 

America would not have come out of the Civil War as it did had it not been
led by men like Lincoln and Lee.  The battles raged for four years, but
for 100 years the country, both North and South, modeled itself on their
characters.  They exemplified almost perfectly Churchill's statement that
"public men charged with the conduct of the war should live in a continual
stress of soul." 

This continual stress of soul is necessary as well in peacetime, because
for every good deed in public life there is a counterbalance.  Benefits
are given only after taxes are taken.  That is part of governance.  The
statesman, who represents the whole nation, sees in the equillibrium for
which he strives a continual tension between victory and defeat.  If he
did not understand this, he would have no stress of soul, he would be
merely happy-- about money showered upon the orphan, taken from the widow. 
About children sent to day care, so that they may be long absent from
their parents.  About merciful parole, of criminals who kill again. 
Whereas a statesman knows continual stress of soul, a politician is happy,
for he knows not what he does.

It is difficult for individuals or nations to recognize that war and peace
alternate.  But they do.  No matter how long peace may last, it will end
in war.  Though most people cannot believe at this moment that the United
States of America will ever again fight for its survival, history
gaurantees that it will.  And, when it does, most people will not know
what to do.  They will believe of war, as they did of peace, that it is
everlasting.  The statesman, who is different from everyone else, will, in
the midst of common despair, see the end of war, just as during the peace
he was alive to the inevitability of war, and saw it coming in the far
distance, as if it were a gray wave moving quietly across a dark sea. 

The politician will revel with his people and enjoy their enjoyments.  The
statesman, in continual stress of soul, will think of destruction.  As
others move in the light, he will move in darkness, so that as others move
in darkness, he may move in the light.  This tenacity, that is given to
those of long and insistent vision, is what saves nations. 

A statesman must have a temperment that is suited for the Medal of Honor,
in a soul that is unafraid to die.  Electorates rightly favor those who
have endured combat, not as a matter of reward for service, as is commonly
believed, but because the willingness of a soldier to give his life is a
strong sign of his correct priorities, and that in the future he will
truly understand that statesmen are not rulers but servants.  It seems
clear that even in these years of squalid degradation that having risked
death for the sake of honor is better than having risked dishonor for the
sake of life. 

Hunger for a Statesman

No matter what you are told by the sophisticated classes that see virtue
in every form of corruption and corruption in every form of virtue, I
think you know, as I do, that the American people hunger for acts of
integrity and courage.  The American people hunger for a statesman
magnetized by the truth, unwilling to give up his good name, uninterested
in calculation only for the sake of victory, unable to put his interests
before those of the nation.  What this means in practical terms is no
focus groups, no polls, no triangulation, no evasion, no broken promises
and no lies.  These are the tools of the chameleon.  They are employed to
cheat the American people of honest answers to direct questions.  If the
average politician, for fear that he may lose something, is incapable of
even a genuine yes or no, how is he supposed to rise to the great
occasions of state?  How is he supposed to face a destructive and
implacable enemy?  How is he supposed to understand the rightful destiny
of his country, and lead it there? 

At the coronation of an English monarch, he is given a sword.  Elizabeth
II took it last, and as she held it before the altar, she heard these
words:  "Receive this kingly Sword, brought now from the altar of God and
delivered to you by us, the Bishops and servants of God, though unworthy. 
With this Sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy
Church of God, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that
are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and
reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order; that doing these
things you may be glorious in all virtue, and so faithfully serve our
Lord." 

Would that we in America come once again to understand that statesmanship
is not the appetite for power but-- because things matter-- a holy calling
of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice.  We have made it something else. 
Nonetheless, after and despite its betrayal, statesmanship remains the
manifestation, in political terms, of beauty, and balance, and truth.  It
is the courage to tell the truth, and thus discern what is ahead.  It is a
mastery of the symmetry of forces, illuminated by the genius of speaking
to the heart of things. 

Statesmanship is a quality that, though it may be betrayed, is always
ready to be taken up again merely by honest subscription to its great
themes.  Have confidence that even in idleness its strengths are growing,
for it is a providential gift given to us in times of need.  Evidently we
do not need it now, but as the world is forever interesting the time will
surely come when we do.  And then, so help me God, I believe that, solely
by the grace of God, the corrupt will be thrown down and the virtuous will
rise up. 

(Mr. Helprin, a novelist, is a contributing editor of the Journal.  This
is adapted from a speech delivered to the Hillsdale College Shavano
Institute.)
-- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Clinton FOB life expectancy (fwd) Date: 09 Jul 1998 08:34:40 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > CLINTON-WITNESS LIFE EXPECTANCY > HITS ALL TIME LOW > > With the death at age 29 of Little Rock transmission shop owner > Johnny Lawhon, the average life expectancy for witnesses against > Bill Clinton has dropped dramatically. Lawhon, who last year > discovered a Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan cashiers check > made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of an abandoned car, died in > a car crash early Sunday morning. He becomes the second witness > connected to that evidence to die within a month. The first, former > Madison Guaranty owner James McDougal, was found dead in his jail > cell just three weeks prior to Lawhon's fatal accident. > Prior to Lawhon's death, insurance industry experts had calculated > the average life expectancy for Clinton scandal witnesses at a full > 49.3 years. But given Mr. Lawhon's relative youth, Clinton-witness > actuarial tables have been revised down to a median AOD (age of death) > of just 44.8 years. > That figure may plummet even further, should actuarial experts > decide to include the death of former White House intern Mary Caity > Mahoney, who was shot to death last year at the age of 25. > Given this trend, industry sources say they may begin screening > life insurance candidates for a new risk factor - a past or present, > direct or indirect association with Bill Clinton. Such a risk > factor might be weighed in the manner insurers currently evaluate > those who participate in high-risk activities like skydiving, > motorcycling or heavy smoking. > Carl of Oyster Bay > > Paul Watson pwatson@utdallas.edu Sr.Buyer UTD The University of Texas at Dallas 972-883-2307, fax 972-883-2348 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: GOP road to Hell, National ID Card (fwd) Date: 09 Jul 1998 08:35:27 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The GOP National ID Increasing attention is finally being given to the fact that we in America are very close to having foisted upon us a national identification system. Gradually, faint echoes of "repeal" are being heard with regard to the national ID implementing legislation. As this idea begins to take hold, we must remain vigilantly aware that: It was the GOP who implemented the national ID program. Between 1994 and 1996 the Republican Congress almost independently enacted the legislation which now serves as the foundation for the national ID system -- the one we are currently scrambling to dismantle. Whether it was through simple ignorance or out right intent, it is GOP legislation which the national ID system is being based on. And, therefore, failure on our part to pay scrutinizingly close attention to all future related GOP actions may well result in the implementation of a "cure" much worse than the disease. Representatives Ron Paul and Bob Barr have recently undertaken -- on their own, individual initiative -- an effort to cut the legs out from under the national ID plan. These two genuinely understand the great harm a national ID system will cause this country. They both know what should be done to stop it. But theirs will be a difficult (if not impossible) task unless a significantly large segment of the American public quickly acts in a strong show of support for their effort. Once the ID system is fully in place, there will be no way to undo it. As with all other liberty-and-rights-encroaching Congressional acts, the most we can possibly HOPE to do now is to merely REGAIN some of the rights, liberties, and freedoms we recently lost. I was recently reminded of the communist motto: "Two steps forward and one step back." Those who would endeavor to steal our liberties know that if they enact fifteen laws encroaching our freedom, we'll spend nearly all our time, effort, and resources to only succeed in countering a small fraction of their enactments, and so the agenda advances. Their efforts are typically successful because they too have a method to tap our very own resources to finance their cause. As a result of the "Republican majority" coming to power in 1994 -- led by Newt Gingrich, Bill Archer, and Bob Dole -- we were inundated with new, liberty-seizing legislation. Perhaps the most socially destructive of all the Republican's efforts were the multiple acts which increase in requirements for Social Security numbers for use as universal identifiers. Under the provisions of the numerous Republican acts Social Security numbers have become mandatory as a condition for participation in what were previously unconditional, constitutionally protected, societal rights. And consequentially the SSN has become an integral component of the national identification document scheme. GATT REQUIREMENTS-- REPUBLICANS INSTITUTE "NUMBERED AT BIRTH" PROGRAM The GOP/SSN/NID program all began back in 1994, when the 103rd Congress enacted the GATT "implementing legislation" known as the "Uruguay Round Agreements Act." This act instituted the "numbering at birth" program. During Senate floor debates regarding the WTA/GATT implementing legislation, Republican Senator Pete Domenici spoke in strong favor of adopting the act. He made the following comments in an exchange with Senator Patrick Moynihan: Mr. DOMENICI: "A final question of special concern is that GATT requires that every United States citizen receive an identification number at birth, and that this matter is unrelated and irrelevant to matters of trade. The answer is that this requirement is included in the implementing language of GATT; it is not part of the GATT itself. This language was included in the implementing legislation because to ensure accurate assessments of income taxes, improper deductions on tax returns must be minimized." Mr. MOYNIHAN: "It is the Social Security number." Mr. DOMENICI: "The Social Security number, that is right. As a consequence, this section is designed to reduce tax cheating by people who claim children they do not have, which has the effect of reducing their taxes." (Congressional Record, Pg. S15274-S15275, 1994) (H.R. 5110 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 1994, P.L. 103-465) Senator Domenici went on to acknowledged that the Act did, in fact, impose a requirement for every United States citizen to be numbered at birth; and he argued that such a requirement was necessary in order to comply with GATT. WELFARE REFORM REQUIREMENTS-- REPUBLICANS CREATE NATIONAL TRACKING DATABASE AND SEEK TO MAKE STATES REQUIRE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FOR ALL LICENSING PROGRAMS In January of 1995, during the "First One-Hundred Days," Republican Congresswoman Nancy Johnson sponsored the "Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995" (H.R. 785). Her amendments to the Social Security Act included establishment of "locating and tracking" databases, and new governmental reporting requirements under the guise of "cracking down on deadbeat dads." Ms. Pat Schroeder had these comments about the Republican child support enforcement bill: "The central component of the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995 is the creation of a national databank that expands the Federal Parent Locator Service and establishes a Federal Child Support Registry. Highlights of the new bill include: "Restricts professional, occupational, and business licenses of noncustodial parents who have failed to pay child support. "Restricts driver's licenses and vehicle registration of noncustodial parents who fail to appear in child support proceedings." (Congressional Record pg. H892, 1995) Also in 1995, Republican Representative Bill Archer introduced a similarly worded bill, H.R. 1214. His bill additionally proposed to amend Title 42 of the U.S. Code, section 405(c) so as to require that all states "shall require" Social Security numbers in the administration of their driver's licensing programs. This bill, and H.R. 785, were eventually incorporated into H.R. 4, The Contract With America, Welfare Reform Act. In the Senate a similarly worded bill, S.906, was cosponsored by Republican Senators Bob Dole and Olympia Snowe. (Congressional Record, pg. S2841, 1996) During floor discussion on H.R. 4, Republican Congresswoman Marge Roukema re-introduced amendments requiring all license applicants in the several states to submit SSNs. The claimed purpose was to locate and suspend the licenses of individuals who had violated child support laws (totally unrelated the licensed activity). Republican Congresswoman Morella had this to say about the proposed measure: "[T]his license revocation amendment is so very important to child support enforcement. It had its inception in the Women's Caucus child support bill in the last Congress. It was also contained in the Women's Caucus bill this year, too. This says States must have license revocation procedures in place. The children of America deserve this." (Congressional Record pg. H3629-3631, 1995) Republican Congresswoman Nancy Johnson stated: "The Child Support Responsibility Act, which we introduced earlier this year along with Congresswomen Connie Morella, Patricia Schroeder, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been largely adopted into the welfare reform bill before us today. The legislation sets up interacting State databases of child support orders, which will be matched against basic 'new hire' data so that State child support officials can locate missing, non-paying parents." And, Republican Congressman Cunningham concluded: "I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to advise the gentlewoman from Colorado, it is the Republican bill that is passing it." Yes, IT WAS the Republicans who passed this bill. On March 23, 1995, Republican Congressman Weller (IL) spoke on behalf of the Republicans regarding the "child support enforcement" measure. In support of final passage of the Personal Responsibility Reform Act (H.R. 4), Representative Weller said this: "[A]s one of the chief sponsors of the Family Reinforcement Act, I rise in strong support of the goals of child support enforcement provisions and the Personal Responsibility Act. All are Republican welfare reform initiatives. Let us vote for real reform that helps kids, helps children. Let us pass H.R. 4 tomorrow on Friday." (Congressional Record pg. H3705, 1995) On August 05, 1995, Republican Senator Bob Dole sponsored the final version of H.R. 4, the Child Support Enforcement amendments, in the Senate. (The Work Opportunity Act of 1995, was also referred to as the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995.) This bill included all of the SSN requirements which laid the groundwork for the national ID. (C.R. S11640, 1995) Meanwhile, back in the House, Republican Representative Goodling said this about the final draft of H.R. 4: "This conference report comes at the end of a long and often difficult process. I want to express my appreciation of my colleagues who have not only worked so hard to achieve a conference agreement but stood firm in helping us negotiate with the other body to achieve a final agreement. I especially want to express my appreciation to the [Republican] Speaker [Newt Gingrich] and to the majority leader, as well as to [Republican] Chairman Archer and [Republican] Chairman Shaw for their leadership during the conference with the Senate." (C.R., pg. H15511, 1995) Republican Representative Bill Archer offered his final comments regarding H.R. 4, just prior to it being finally approved by the House. Speaking in exuberant support of the bill, Representative Archer stated: "We bring forward today a great bill..." "Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill and a great opportunity to solve one of our Nation's most vexing problems. "This is a bill that only an extreme liberal could oppose. I urge all my colleagues to fix welfare and vote for his conference report." (C.R., pg. H15511, 1995) The Republican Congress did, in fact, do just as Dole and Archer had asked. On December 29, 1995, Congress PASSED H.R. 4, the Contract With America, Welfare Reform Act of 1995. (C. R., H15658, 1995) However, President Bill Clinton VETOED H.R. 4, immediately thereafter. Then, within just a few short months of Clinton's veto -- during the very first part of the 1996 session--the Republican Congress once again considered virtually the very same welfare reform act that Clinton had just vetoed (this time as "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," or PRWORA, Public Law 104-193, H.R. 3453). And this time it was quickly enacted with little or no resistance or fanfare. BALANCED BUDGET ACT REQUIREMENTS-- REPUBLICANS THREATEN SUSPENSION OF FEDERAL WELFARE FUNDING TO EXTORT STATES INTO REQUIRING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FOR ALL STATE-ISSUED LICENSES With enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law: 105-33, H.R. 2015) the Welfare Reform Act was further expanded (this time deceptively as a "technical correction") so as to now require Social Security numbers from ALL driver's license applicants. Initially, the only way the Republicans could get the SSN-for-licenses requirements passed was to limit the "driver's license" requirement to only "commercial" driver's licenses. But in 1997, in a well thought out slight of hand, Republican members crafted a "technical corrections" bill that would consummate the ugly job begun the previous year. Regarding these "technical corrections" Representative Levin had this to tell his fellow Congress members: "Today we are considering the Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Act of 1997. This legislation will correct technical problems that impact implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. ... As we all know, it is inevitable when we pass comprehensive legislation that we must go back and correct technical errors. ... Each of the measures in this bill is technical in nature and does not change the substance of the new law." Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut said: "I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for their hard work. I know that there are some who might say there is more interesting work than technical corrections but nothing is more important across this country to people who really do not know exactly what is said in the statute and, therefore, have to interpret it and live by it." Representative Kennelly was one of the chief sponsors of the initial license revocation amendments. She know full well, all along, that the initial act only applied to "commercial" driver's licenses. This was the scheme used to get it passed. And remember Republican Representative Goodling who was quoted earlier as saying how pleased he was with Bob Archer's work on the requirements for SSNs contained in the previous act? Well, here's what Goodling said about the "technical corrections": "I am pleased to support H.R. 1048, the Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Act of 1997. This legislation makes a number of technical and clarifying amendments to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996-- the welfare reform law--that Congress passed and President Clinton signed last year." "I want to emphasize that these amendments are technical and clarifying in nature and do not change or undercut the important reforms of welfare that we made last year." Are we supposed to believe this? Isn't there some law against lying to Congress? These Republican "technical corrections" changed the SSN reporting requirement so that instead of the law applying to only the very small and limited class of "commercial" driver's -- as originally written -- it now applied to ALL 180 million "non-commercial" citizen drivers! This "minor change" made the Act more individuals than does most other "major" legislation. The 1997 "technical corrections" bill also added recreational and sporting (i.e., hunting, fishing, boating) licenses to the list of items for which a SSN is required. As amended in 1997, via the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the Republicans' Welfare Reform Act now imposes funding-contingent requirements upon ALL state agencies that they must obtain Social Security numbers from ALL applicants in the issuance of driver's licenses, professional licenses, occupational licenses, sporting and recreational licenses, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates, and divorce decrees. States failing to implement these requirements will lose all federal welfare funding. IMMIGRATION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS-- REPUBLICANS SEAL THE DEAL ON THE LAST PIECES OF THE NATIONAL ID SYSTEM PUZZLE And, finally, a piece of Republican legislation (now law) is just about to be implemented by way of the recently proposed Department of Transportation driver's license regulation -- which will ultimately result in the inevitable establishment of a standardized national identification document system. In 1996 Congress began debate on the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996," H.R. 2202 (which eventually became Public Law 104-208 now serving as the impetus for the proposed rule). At that time, Republican Senator Alan Simpson proposed a series of amendments to the original version of the Immigration Reform bill which included all the requirements forcing the states to standardize birth certificates and driver's licenses by October 1, 2000. (C.R. Pg. S4390-4393, 1996) His amendments were eventually incorporated into the enacted bill. U.S. Republican Senator Phil Graham did speak out openly and strongly against H.R. 2202, but his effort was not independently sufficient in stopping the larger GOP plan. Also, Senator Abraham spoke against the bill and said that it would result in the establishment of a natal ID. He stated: "This [bill] will force States to conform to Federal standards in issuing these documents, because States' citizens will want to be able to use them for Federal purposes. It is an intrusion into an area properly subject to State control and another step toward a national identification system. It is unnecessary and it should not be undertaken. (C.R. Pg. S11886, 1996) Ultimately, the Republican majority won out and the Illegal Immigration Reform Act was approved along with the national ID. TAX CREDITS FOR CHILDREN REQUIREMENTS-- REPUBLICANS USE TAX PENALTIES TO FORCE THE SHACKLES OF SSNs ONTO CHILDREN; NUMBER THEM, OR THEY DON'T EXIST As recently as last year, (1997) the Republican Congress again imposed new SSN reporting requirements; this time with the consequence of a stiff new tax penalty for anyone who opposes it. The screws have been steadily and incrementally tightened over the recent years on the requirement to furnish a SSN in order to receive child tax credits. This past year Congress turned the screws the final full turn and passed the "Taxpayer "Relief Act of 1997" (talk about a misnomer) (H.R. 2014) which further requires that every parent must use numbers to identify their children in order to claim them for tax credits. As a consequence of this Republican enactment, the federal government will not recognize nor acknowledge that you even have children (or that they are yours) unless you have them numbered. Again our "conservative" Republican Congress (in furtherance of the "Contract On America") has imposed yet another new tax stipulation designed to force all parents who haven't done so already to number their children. (This is similar to the GATT enumeration at birth legislation; just another nail in the coffin.) IT WAS THE GOP THAT PASSED ALL OF IT!!! So far, ONLY Representatives Ron Paul and Bob Barr who have stepped up to the plate and offered to do anything to repeal the GOP numbering and tracking program. Absent their success, every American will be tracked from cradle to grave. So far, two -- TWO -- Republican Representatives have taken real action to turn this all around. As with all vices and offences, the first step towards correction is to first admit the failure. Then, where harm has been caused, apologies are in order and immediate corrective measures engaged. Not until the GOP undertakes those prerequisites will we have any real hope of stopping the national ID. Once the GOP remembers that this is America, once the GOP actually dismantles the machinery of slavery THEY have hammered into place -- perhaps then will be time enough for commendations and praise for the GOP. In the mean time, the national identification plan should be labeled, known as, AND GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS: "The GOP National ID" Scott McDonald Reply to: - -- howardb3@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas Paul Watson pwatson@utdallas.edu Sr.Buyer UTD The University of Texas at Dallas 972-883-2307, fax 972-883-2348 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Gun Poll (fwd) Date: 09 Jul 1998 08:52:36 -0700 as of 8:50 PST 7/9 results for the poll below: Yes.....63.4% No.....31.3% Not sure.....5.2% Ttl votes.....7378 At 6:19 PM -0800 7/8/98, Bill Vance wrote: >On Jul 08, Josh Amos wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > >We are getting hammered here too > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm > > >[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no >weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his >hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a >on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Posse> Constitutionist's Networking Center Intro Date: 10 Jul 1998 08:36:48 PST On Jul 10, by way of Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Carl Klang , CATS , Chuck , Cindy Furnare , >From - Constitutionist's Networking Center, 442 E 1250 Rd., Baldwin, KS 66006 - Ph/fax 785-594-3367 - E-mail cnc@idir.net To - awakened, concerned and responsible Americans everywhere: Subject - Identifying concerned and responsible Constitutionists INTRODUCTION - Please bear with me as I introduce myself and the why of this letter. I'm Walter Myers, Executive Director of the Constitutionist's Networking Center (CNC). My last paid position was as Chief of the Plans and Programs Division of the General's Staff, U. S. Air Force Military Training Center, Lackland AFB, TX. I say that to say this. My background has convinced me of the logic in the old adage "plan your work and work your plan" and of the need for Constitutionist's to heed that advice. The CNC is a limited membership organization - not because we are elitists - but because we want to network with every individual and organization sharing our beliefs and goal. This would be impossible if we were trying to proselytize the members of those we hope to work with in pursuit of that goal. The CNC was formed Constitution day, 1993 by people concerned over the course of our nation and who strongly believe that altering it demands unity - NOT IN BODY- but in spirit and action; unity which can best be achieved thru proper planning. For more information on the CNC, see www.cypress.idir.net/~cnc. PURPOSE - The purpose of this communication is to try to identify individuals and organizational leaders of like mind; ie., people who share a concern over the direction our nation is headed and who wish to see AMERICA (in the words of General Raymond G. Davis, USMC, rtd) do an ABOUT FACE. He's encouraging veterans and pastors to provide leadership at the local level.Those interested can contact him via fax at 770-474-2260. BACKGROUND - The CNC believes there are now enough concerned people to reclaim control of government if they will jointly develop and implement an action plan. Further, we believe the plan must insure participants can retain their independence and freedom to pursue their special interests (ie., do their own thing) while working together on the few actions through which they can Take America Back. We also believe that only by reclaiming control of our institutions of government can concerned Americans peacefully resolve the many issues before them. We suggest that for a plan to receive the needed acceptance, its potential supporters must have an opportunity to help develop it. This is especially true on the few items forming the foundation for their position on issues, the problem they face and a goal. Once an individual or organization agrees on these items, they automatically become members of a team. Its then a matter of laying egos aside long enough to work with others in implementing the plan. The following is an outline of what the CNC suggests the plan should contain. I will try to provide enough detail to permit you to decide if your interests track close enough with ours to justify further communication. If you have questions, please call 785-594-3367 or e-mail me. If we don't hear from you, we will assume we have a different goal and/or that you have no interest in working with others in defining or implementing a jointly developed plan. KEYS TO UNITY - The CNC suggests that the three key elements forming the basis for "teaming up" to TAKE AMERICA BACK are: 1. a set of premises upon which the team will rely for its position on issues. 2. a common understanding of the problem we face. 3. a goal. Via CNC media release 93.2, we cited our premises as follows. In addition to providing a foundation to build on, we suggest adoption of a few undeniable truths is a preemptive act. It will help prevent being unfairly labeled as "far right", the "other Americans" or affiliates of some discredited organization. Therefore, the CNC suggests every Constitutionally committed individual and group choosing to help implement a plan adopt a position paper containing their beliefs. Ours follow but may change to reflect comments offered by others. 1. The Declaration of Independence is our Nation's birth certificate and the cornerstone of our Constitution. Its policies are to be pursued in conducting our Nation's affairs. 2. There can only be one set of Supreme policies and laws for any Nation. For the U.S., the set includes our Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the U.S. (including the Bill of Rights), the Constitution's for the indi-vidual States and all lawfully ratified Amendments whose pros, cons, and full impact were understood by voters and their representatives prior to ratification and whose purpose was - and is - in pursuance of the principles, procedures and intent of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution's Preamble. 3. The Bill of Rights are restrictions on government and theoretically prohibit it from making laws which infringe on those Rights. To be lawful, an ordinance or law cannot infringe upon any Right set forth in the Bill of Rights. 4. Any lawful change to the form, policies, principles and/or operational procedures of our duly constituted government must be approved by 75% of our state legislatures. Since no state has ratified major changes to them, any Treaty, Charter, Foreign Constitution, covenant, Legislative Act, International Convention, etc. must be in pursuance of the spirit and intent of the principles set forth in our nation's founding documents to be lawful. 5. The Constitution of the U.S. is a Compact between"free and independent states." Through this Compact, they, on behalf of we the sovereign people, created the federal government as an AGENT. As the principals to the Constitution and under the Law of Agency, it is we the people, operating through our State legislatures, who possess the ultimate authority and responsibility for the Constitution's proper interpretation and implementation. 6. The U. S. Supreme Court was correct in saying: a. "This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." (Reid vs. Covert) b. "All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." (Marbury vs. Madison) c. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda vs. Arizona) 7. The Constitution's 10th Amendment stating "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" and the statement in Federalist Paper #41saying "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted if these and all others were meant to be included in the proceeding general power" provide incontestable evidence that the only lawful powers of the Federal Government are those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. 8. No Federal Agent has, nor has ever had, the lawful authority to dissolve the Constitutional Compact nor distort its purposes and intent as provided in its Preamble and clarified in the Federalist Papers. *************end of premises************* PROBLEM - Though the CNC's view is that "our nation has been, and continues to be very deliberately, systematically, pervasively and unconstitutionally mismanaged on behalf of the world's financial/industrial cartel," we are in full agreement with the allegation made by the Republican governors in 1994 when they said:"Federal action has exceeded the clear bounds of its jurisdiction under the Constitution and thus violated rights guaranteed to the people." The CNC is willing to accept the governors allegation as the definition of our nation's problem if it is more palatable to others. GOAL - Following their allegation, the governors pledged "to restore to the States and the people the prerogatives and freedoms guaranteed them under the Constitution." If this pledge were to become reality, we believe it will satisfy the CNC's stated goal of "a government again operating within the limits prescribed by the Constitution." NEEDED ACTION - Individuals and organizations in general agreement with the cited premises, statement of our problem, and goal and who are willing to agree to disagree agreeably when necessary, and network with others in pursuit of the major objectives lying on the goals critical path, are encouraged to: 1. Send the CNC a simple communication saying "include me/my organization in the network". If possible, include an e-mail address and/or fax number through which you can be reached! 2. Mail and/or fax a copy of this communication to everyone you think might share our concerns for their review and consideration. 3. Rewrite the stated premises, problem, and goal if you think they can be significantly improved upon and send your suggested verbiage to the CNC. If and when mutually acceptable statements on these three items are agreed upon, we can try to jointly identify and define other items to be included in a plan. The CNC suggests the remaining questions to be answered and the sequence in which they should be addressed are: 1. What are the major objectives lying on the critical path to our goal? 2. Who will be responsible for the pursuit of these objectives? 3. What options are available for satisfying each objective? 4. What strategies and tactics will be employed under each option for each objective? 5. How will those helping to implement the plan be efficiently and effectively networked? 6. Who will be responsible for overseeing the plan's implementation? 7. What logistical considerations must be satisfied? 8. By what standard will we determine if individuals and organizations are friend or foe so we can insure our resources are being put to productive use? Though an answer to each of these questions is proposed in the book To Tame a Tyrant (ISBN 1-57921-034-1), they too should be critiqued and worthy comments included in the plan. I pray each recipient of this communication will give it serious consideration as time is of the essence. We can no longer afford the luxury of having our few precious resources diverted into chasing symptoms of our problem or in trying to study it out of existence! Let's move beyond being "Keyboard Cowboys" engaged in great debates over the crossing of t's and the dotting of I's. Let's cut the chase, get to the heart of our problem, objectively analyze the options for solving it, establish an organizational structure through which we can and will network with one another, and GO FOR IT! THE TIME FOR DILLYDALLYING IS OVER. We have a challenge to meet and with God's blessing, objective thinking, and responsible action, we can and will meet it! For those quick to criticize - and I know you're out there - please be constructive in your criticism! We relish it! But if you don't like anything about our plan, send us a copy of yours! I promise it will be given due consideration. If you can do neither and have no interest in helping develop or implement a plan, I repectfully request that you remove the CNC from your mailing lists as our limited resources demand we stay focused on the path that we feel God has lead us to follow. In God and Country, Walter L Myers Ex. Dir. CNC [------------------------- 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: REsponse To Dessicant Alert (fwd) Date: 10 Jul 1998 15:14:59 PST On Jul 10, Tom Jones wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Reply to Desiccant Alert United Desiccants' MilSpec desiccant bags have been approved for use by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NSSC) for use in a variety of military and non-military applications. The bags conform to military specification MIL-D-3464E. This specification requires that desiccants that are to be used in military applications, such as storage of ammunition and weapons, pass certain tests for corrosion. This test involves exposing panels made of aluminum, brass, steel and magnesium to both the desiccant and the desiccant packaging (paper) at 25( C at 60% relative humidity to test for corrosion of the materials. These panels are then placed into an oven at 38( C for 72 hours. The panels are then removed and visually inspected for evidence of corrosion. If any corrosion occurs during this test, the desiccant will not be approved by the NSSC and Qualified Products Lists (QPL) approval will not be granted. The tests conducted on the desiccant must be supervised and witnessed by an authorized representative of the NSSC and the final test result must be reviewed and approved by the NSSC. United Desiccants is a QPL approved manufacturer and supplier of MIL-D-3464E Type 1 and Type 2 desiccant to the U.S. Military. If the desiccant bag is manufactured by United Desiccants and has "MIL-D-3464E" printed on the bag, then the desiccant has been tested and approved by the NSSC. Since desiccants and desiccant bags may be sold or represented as meeting the specifications for MIL-D-3464E by companies NOT classified as approved QPL-3464 manufactures, it is important for a purchaser to find out if the manufacturer of the desiccant is, in fact, listed on the Qualified Products List. Otherwise, the quality and performance of the MIL-D-3464E desiccant may be in question. The X-Crepe or Kraft paper that is used to package desiccant under MIL-D-3464E is a cellulose based, breathable film that is widely used to package desiccants. The paper contains a minute amount of sulfur (<0.21% by weight). The sulfur is a natural component of the Kraft paper and will not create any corrosion or contamination problems during normal use. For protection of components such as integrated circuits, computer boards and wafers, United Desiccants recommends the use of Tyvek film versus X-Crepe for desiccant packaging. This is due to two issues: 1. Electronic packaging and protection requires the use of dustless, clean room type materials. Tyvek is composed on spun-bonded high-density polypropylene, and is a clean room material. The X-Crepe paper will give off cellulose fibers when subjected to excessive vibration or friction that might take place during handling. 2. Integrated circuits are composed of very thin layers of copper and other conductive metals. Solvents or other volatile compounds may out gas from packaging materials and then may interact with the sulfur in the X-Crepe film if the X-Crepe film is in direct contact with the chip or integrated circuit. For all other applications, X-Crepe is considered a safe and effective desiccant packaging component. Thomas Jones Customer Service Manager United Desiccants [------------------------- 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: Liberty or Death Subject: The M-16 in Viet Nam Date: 11 Jul 1998 18:48:23 -0700 Hi folks - While the lists I'm posting this to are primarily political in nature, the saga of the M-16 in Viet Nam is something that few people really know the details of and that a lot of people know was a problem. And, actually, it *was* a political problem, and it got a lot of good American soldiers killed. 31 years later, the story of what really went wrong with the "Matty Mattel Mouse Gun" is still controversial, and still important. A friend of mine, Dick Culver, has written the first of a series of articles on the M-16 in Viet Nam. Dick was a Marine officer in Viet Nam, and in fact was one of the two Marines that wrote the infamous letter about the M-16's problems that eventually wound up in the Washington Post and pretty much started all the hoopla back home about the little black rifle that couldn't. I think a lot of you will find this fascinating, and a good read. Part One is at the following URL: http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html I'll let you all know when he's finished with Part Two, which is going to delve more into the technical reasons why the M-16, as delivered, was responsible for *many* American soldiers being found dead with their cleaning rod in the barrel of their rifle and only one shot fired from the magazine. While you're at his website, look around :) I think you'll like it. - Monte Let the sea roar and its fulness, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord. For He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with equity. - Psalm 98 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #93 (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1998 08:57:38 PST On Jul 12, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 12, 1998 #93 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at:=20 http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html CLINTON SAYS PAY AND OBEY Today, the executive branch legislates more=20 than the legislative branch. The number of rules,=20 regulations and executive orders promulgated annually far=20 exceeds the number of bills passed by Congress. No matter=20 that rules, regulations and executive orders that impact=20 the lives of citizens are not Constitutional, they are the=20 law. The administrative branch even has its own=20 courts to adjudicate these executive branch rules,=20 regulations and executive orders. We call them=20 Administrative Law Courts. That=92s an interesting arrangement. The=20 executive branch makes the rules, regulations and=20 executive orders. The executive branch enforces the=20 rules, regulations and executive orders through its many=20 police agencies. And the executive branch tries violators=20 in its own administrative law courts. Neither Congress=20 nor the federal court system (as 90% of the American people think of them) are necessary. James Madison warned about that type of=20 situation in The Federalist Papers (No. 47): =93The=20 accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and=20 judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or=20 many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective,=20 may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.=94 Tyranny seems to fit nicely when a president=20 generates an executive order designed to change the=20 Constitutionally established relationship between the=20 federal government and the States. Tyranny is also a=20 good word for the actions of an administration that usurps=20 control over just about everything from the States, and=20 sets up dozens of administrative agencies designed to=20 control the lives of the people. Franklin D. Roosevelt did all that. FDR=20 issued over 200 presidential proclamations and over 1,500=20 executive orders, and these were all before the Second=20 World War started. There were a few thousand rules and=20 regulations issued, too. Since then, Clinton holds the record. And,=20 like FDR, Clinton means to change the whole relationship=20 between the federal and State governments. The craven=20 Congress let every piece of Clinton=92s unilateral law pass=20 so far, so Clinton now plans a whole flurry of unilateral=20 legislation in the form of executive orders. This is all quite unconstitutional, of course. =20 Most of these powers came about not by Constitutional=20 Amendment, but as a result of a few =93emergency powers=94=20 acts pushed through Congress in the 1930s by FDR. And we=20 also know for certain that both Congress and the Courts=20 are well aware that this whole shebang is very=20 unconstitutional. For instance, there=92s Senate Report 93-549=20 of 1973: As we said, Roosevelt had Congress pass special=20 laws, making a whole series of new =93emergency=94 powers=20 available to him, or any succeeding president. All that=20 is necessary is for the President to declare a national=20 emergency, which all presidents since FDR have done,=20 continuously. Anyway, back in 1973, a Senate committee=20 asked the Attorney General for a report on what the=20 consequences would be if all national emergencies were=20 terminated and the emergency powers laws repealed. The=20 Attorney General replied: =93. . . a 'national emergency' is now a=20 practical necessity in order to carry out what has become=20 the regular and normal method of governmental actions. =20 What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to=20 be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the=20 most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and=20 a state of =91emergency=92 has become a permanent condition.=94 The Senate Committee=92s report admits that: =20 =93A majority of the people of the United States have lived=20 all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years,=20 freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the=20 Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by=20 laws brought into force by states of national emergency.=94 =20 But, Congress likes the federal government to have these=20 extra powers, so it does nothing. =20 In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court commented=20 on the issue, too. In Printz et al v. U.S. (95-1478,=20 1997) the court writes: =93Much of the Constitution is concerned=20 with setting forth the form of our government, and the=20 courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating=20 from that form. The result may appear =91formalistic=92 in a=20 given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because=20 such measures are typically the product of the era's=20 perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us=20 from our own best intentions: It divides power among=20 sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so=20 that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in=20 one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the=20 day.=94 Clinton will continue playing king, ruling=20 by decree, because Congress is negligent. The bureaucracy=20 will continue churning out regulations because we do not=20 have an honest president. If we do not institute change,=20 all we taxpayers can do is pay and obey. POLITICAL PROPAGANDA Let=92s call it Operation PLAD (Political Lies,=20 Arrogance and Disinformation). In no particular order,=20 we find Sidney Blumenthal, Ann Lewis, James Carville,=20 Paul Begala, Lanny Davis, Marsha Scott, John Podesta, and=20 Rahm Emanuel -- the male voice of Ann Lewis -- heading up=20 operation PLAD. They are supported by a cast of=20 characters which includes at least two opposition research=20 teams, two or more private detective agencies and at least=20 two dozen attorneys. None of these people have much of anything=20 to do with turning the wheels of government, but they all=20 work in or for the White House and most are paid with=20 taxpayer funds. Their only function is to keep Clinton=92s=20 poll ratings high. From Operation PLAD, White House propaganda=20 moves down to the useful idiots in the national media. =20 CNN and the network news talking heads seem to accept=20 anything the White House offers as being fact. Then=20 there=92s a second line of so called journalists, who are=20 active White House propagandists. This group includes Al=20 Hunt, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift, Geraldo Rivera and=20 others. So who can we trust in the mass media? =20 Peter Arnett, Jack Smith and April Oliver at CNN got=20 caught editing facts to make the story they wanted. Even=20 Larry King stuck his foot in his mouth last week. While being interview by radio host Ron=20 Owens on KABC in Los Angeles and KGO in San Francisco,=20 King stated that anyone who reads and quotes Matt Drudge=20 =93is stupid.=94 =93He's like a psychic,=94 King said. =93He makes=20 thousands of predictions and when one accidentally comes=20 true, everyone says he broke a story.=94 And, on his own=20 July 8 show, King said that Drudge is 98% wrong. However, Matt Drudge was paying attention. Drudge reported: =93First Larry King declares=20 on talk radio that anyone who reads and quotes the DRUDGE=20 REPORT =91is stupid.=92 Then on his own show he pretends that=20 he doesn't know who I am. Moments later, he declares that=20 my reports are =9198 percent wrong.=92 But said he doesn't=20 know who I am.=94 =20 Mark R. Levin, President of the Landmark=20 Legal Foundation, caught the far-left Internet tabloid=20 Salon trashing the facts last week, too. Levin said in=20 a press release: =93You conspiracy nitwits at Salon have it=20 wrong, again. Bruce Shapiro, one of your frequent=20 contributors (who hails from the extreme left-wing=20 magazine The Nation), writes in his article =91True=20 Believer=92 (July 3, 1998) that =91When [Ken Starr] returned=20 to private practice after his stint as solicitor general,=20 Starr became a director of the Scaife-funded ... Landmark=20 Legal Foundation ...=92 =93While we'd be honored if this were true, the=20 fact is that Ken Starr has never been a member of=20 Landmark=92s Board.=94 Patricia Smith, a columnist at the Boston=20 Globe had to resign when editors found that she had=20 fabricated quotes and characters in several columns. =20 Stephen Glass, writer and associate editor at the New=20 Republic was also fired for making up news -- 27 out of=20 41 articles, they said. Then came the media surprise of the year. =20 The Cincinnati Enquirer admitted some of the misdeeds of=20 Mike Gallagher, an errant reporter, and voluntarily paid=20 out an unasked-for $10-million to Chiquita Brands=20 International Inc. The reporter in question not only used=20 dishonest tactics, he actually tapped into Chiquita=92s=20 voice mail system for information. Therefore, along with=20 getting fired, he may also be looking at a little prison=20 time. Bruce Shapiro, who teaches investigative=20 journalism at Yale University, and writes the column Law=20 and Order for The Nation, wrote in Salon that Gallagher=92s=20 actions were only a =93comparatively modest legal=20 transgression. =93Yet if Gallagher goes to jail for theft,=94=20 Shapiro writes, =93or Chiquita wins its trespass-defamation- conspiracy suit, corporations all over the country will be=20 emboldened to use notions of intellectual property as a=20 club against aggressive investigative reporting. What=92s=20 the practical difference between one reporter=92s convincing=20 an executive to provide voice mail and another to provide=20 a ream of documents? Both involve what the Enquirer=92s=20 apology called =91privileged, confidential and proprietary=20 information.=92 Both involve reporters=92 treading a very=20 blurry line between leak and theft.=94 Apparently Shapiro thinks stealing confidential=20 and proprietary information is justified when done for the=20 cause of journalism. Stealing for personal gain -- in=20 this case, a story -- is still thievery. And, like=20 everyone else, reporters should go to prison for such=20 actions. The First Amendment allows publication of=20 almost anything, and that=92s just about what we get: almost=20 anything. Few of Washington=92s reporters check their facts=20 when these =93facts=94 come from Democrats. Nor do any of the=20 Washington media cadre ever consider that the political=20 =93facts=94 they parrot are often quite unconstitutional. It won=92t be long before =93journalist=94 becomes=20 a synonym for =93propagandist.=94 GOVERNMENT STIFLES ECONOMIC GROWTH The words =91interesting,=92 =91true,=92 and=20 =91government report=92 do not normally appear in the same=20 sentence on these pages, but there are exceptions. For instance, when a report states that if=20 government had stayed at its 1960 size the average yearly=20 income for a family of four would have hit nearly $75,000=20 in 1996, we tend to believe that. And when it reports=20 that if government spending as a share of GDP had stayed=20 at its 1960 level, every man, woman and child in American=20 would have had an extra $5,860 in the bank in 1996 -- or=20 $23,440 for a family of four -- we can believe that, too. =20 Or, when they report that when the researchers took into=20 account the impact of the decline in defense spending, the=20 family's 1996 earnings were boosted by $46,000, that even=20 sounds feasible on this end. The report was not actually written by=20 federal government employees, of course. The report was=20 prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress by=20 economists James Gwartney, Robert Lawson and Randall=20 Holcombe, all college professors. They report that, as government grew over=20 the years, its spending swelled from 28.4 percent of GDP=20 in 1960 to 34.6 percent in 1996. So, what could have been=20 a $9.16 trillion economy in 1996 was, instead, only $7.64=20 trillion due to the growth of government. =93As governments=20 move beyond their core functions, they will adversely=20 affect economic growth,=94 the report points out. The study=92s authors define =93core functions=94=20 as the protection of persons and property, national=20 defense, education, monetary stability and infrastructure. =20 Those functions, they contend, typically cost 15 percent=20 of a country's GDP. They report that any spending above the=20 15 percent threshold results in economic slowdown or even=20 decline. They say that happens because higher taxes=20 discourage growth. Also, because government is not as=20 efficient as the private sector in allocating resources,=20 labor becomes less productive and investment is stifled. Interestingly enough, they estimate that, in 1996,=20 spending on core government responsibilities stood at=20 about 13.8 percent of GDP, but that all the transfer=20 payments and subsidies consumed nearly 14 percent more of=20 GDP. The bottom line -- their recommendation=20 to Congress -- is simple: =93This paper shows that=20 excessively large government has reduced economic growth. =20 These findings present a compelling case that rather than=20 devising new programs to spend any surplus that may emerge=20 from the current economic expansion, Congress should=20 develop a long-range strategy to reduce the size of=20 government so we will be able to achieve a more rapid rate=20 of economic growth in the future.=94=20 Just as an aside here, we seem to remember=20 economist and pundit Walter Williams pointing out this=20 very same information a few months ago. Williams reported=20 that, were the federal government limited to only those=20 functions delegated to it by the Constitution, our tax=20 rate would need be about one-third of what it is now. The full report: =93The Size and Functions of=20 Government And Economic Growth,=94 by James Gwartney,=20 Professor of Economics and Policy Sciences at Florida=20 State University; Robert Lawson, Assistant Professor of=20 Economics at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio; and=20 Randall Holcombe, DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics at=20 Florida State University, can be found on the Joint=20 Committee Study web page at: =20 http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/function.htm ARMED CITIZEN FOILS BANK ROBBERY =93A man needs his gun,=94 an old judge told=20 me during my first visit to Kentucky a decade ago. He=20 even had his wife drive me to the gun store to purchase=20 the handgun of my choice. In many areas of Kentucky, carrying a gun is=20 more or less a cultural thing. Gentlemen do not shoot at=20 each other much anymore, but many seem to feel more=20 secure knowing that extra hunk of steel is with them. So,=20 when some men put a hat on, they also put a gun in their=20 belt. The laws in Kentucky are rather straightforward=20 on guns. Any adult may carry an unconcealed weapon=20 anywhere. Carrying concealed supposedly requires a=20 license. But that=92s a relatively new law that has not=20 quite caught on completely in rural areas yet. Many=20 people also keep handguns in their vehicle glove=20 compartments, which is legal in Kentucky. And truly, sometimes a man does need his gun. =20 For instance, a Louisville man nearly walked into a bank=20 while a robbery was in progress last week. Just before=20 opening the door, he noticed that there was a man wearing=20 a bandanna tied around his face behind the teller=92s=20 counter, and the bank employees were =93acting strangely.=94 So, the man walked back to his car, got his=20 small caliber pistol, and waited outside the bank. =20 According to witnesses, when the robber exited the bank=20 the man yelled for him to stop. The robber turned to the=20 armed citizen and made the mistake of pointing his gun at=20 the man. The armed citizen began firing, and the robber=20 hit the deck, shot in the neck. The robber got off a shot too, but didn=92t hit=20 anything, and the armed citizen fired twice more. By then, the bank robber had dropped his=20 bag of cash all over the sidewalk, so he did the best he=20 could at getting himself up and out of there -- empty=20 handed. Witnesses saw the getaway car, and the police=20 were able to apprehend the robber an hour later. So the robber got a bullet, the bank got its=20 cash back, the police got their man, and the armed=20 citizen got his errands completed. All because that good=20 citizen had the forethought to bring along his handgun. When an arrant newspaper reporter asked=20 the police what charges would be filed against the armed=20 citizen, he first got a dirty look. No charges will be=20 filed, the police said. He is considered a victim, the=20 reporter was told. THE BLACKMAILING OF AMERICA By: Craig M. Brown -- for Heads Up It was almost two months ago when we discovered,=20 almost by accident, that President Clinton had issued=20 Executive Order 13083, transferring the power of the=20 sovereign states to the federal government, namely the=20 President. Cyberspace came alive over this diabolical=20 order while the media remained strangely silent. =20 =93Congress will never stand for this,=94 we said to ourselves=20 and we waited for them to stand up in outrage and strike=20 it down. Now two months have gone by, and our Congress=20 has sat by in befuddled silence. It's not that we haven't tried to bring it=20 to their attention. I myself spoke directly to my=20 Congressman about EO 13083 and faxed him countless pages=20 of background. His aides promised over and over again=20 that they would get back to me on this matter and after=20 weeks, still an embarrassing silence. This experience has=20 been repeated with our Congressional representatives=20 across the country, including, sadly, Speaker of the=20 House, Newt Gingrich. For the past few weeks, many of us have=20 been talking among ourselves, wondering why our Congress=20 has deserted us. These are men and women we believed in,=20 perspired for and gave our money to in order to send them=20 to Congress to represent us. And now they seem to have=20 turned their backs on us. Why? Why, indeed. There seems to be a pattern=20 of so many of our most conservative representatives=20 tacitly supporting the attacks by this administration on=20 our Constitution and our freedoms. The Clinton Executive=20 Orders are coming fast and furious as the administration=20 becomes ever more bold in assuming dictatorial powers, in=20 the process making Congress irrelevant. Why has Congress=20 stood by and allowed President Clinton to create any kind=20 of law, let alone laws that destroy the powers of the states? The answer, or at least a theory, came to me when I was=20 considering the sudden appearance of 900-plus FBI files in=20 White House computer banks on Republicans or others who=20 might oppose the administration agenda. Is it just a=20 coincidence that so soon after the breaking of filegate=20 that so many of our members of Congress were struck with=20 spasms of blindness when it came to abuses of power by our=20 President? Are we to believe that possession of these=20 files by Hillary Clinton are only for such things as=20 helping her out with her Christmas card list? I am just=20 paranoid enough to believe that those files in the=20 possession of the Clinton administration are there for a=20 more mischievous purpose. Our Congress is made up of people just=20 like you and me. I will confess that in my youth I=20 committed a number of less than saintly deeds, many of=20 which I wouldn't want everyone to know about. I assume=20 that the same is true of the members of Congress. It is=20 possible, even likely, that some Congress people have=20 something in their past so egregious that exposure might=20 threaten not only their careers, but their family life. =20 In these cases, here then comes the measure of courage. =20 The question is, shall the fear of the uncovering of past=20 misdeeds lead us into the paths of dishonor? Does the=20 protection of our reputations outweigh the love for our=20 country? Shall we change the lyrics to one of the stanzas in,=20 =93America The Beautiful=94 to read as follows? Oh beautiful, for patriots dream Of liberating strife Who more than country themselves they loved And freedom less than life. If our Congress is being blackmailed into=20 abandoning all the principles they swore to uphold, and=20 I have no proof that it is, then the members of Congress=20 are overlooking something very basic about the American=20 people. We are a very forgiving people. We will forgive=20 almost anything our leaders have done in the past and, in=20 fact, we exalt those who have the courage to deal publicly=20 with their past and we condemn those who are using it to=20 take away whatever honor they have left. What we will=20 never forgive is the selling out of our country. I repeat, this is only a theory. But I wonder=20 how close it is to the truth. And if it is true, I wonder=20 what honorable men will do about it. -- 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: Paul M Watson Subject: new section - help the cause (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1998 11:20:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (small commission goes to non-profit pro-gun groups) We have added the links under the gun rights and politics section to FullBookJacket. if you want to search the subpages there for books of interest, use EDIT, FIND in Netscape 3.x other browsers' search functions work. please bookmark it and get all your amazon books, videos, and cd's there. you can also order magazines. GUN PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO AMAZON ONLY BY ROUTING THROUGH THIS SITE! http://thePentagon.com/FullBookJacket it's still under construction, but the search engines and links that are there work. THANKS -- Get "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0226493636/gunssavelives/ small commission to non-profit pro-gun groups (opinions here are personal, not those of any organization) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Scanland Subject: Washington Times Op-Eds on the CNN "News" debacle Date: 13 Jul 1998 12:48:59 -0500 The following three editorials were in today's online version of the Washington Times. Somedays you just gotta believe we're going to be ok. Chuck =============================================================== At CNN, the rot starts at the head By Christine Dolan Let there be no mincing of words: Tom Johnson, chairman, president and CEO of the CNN News Group, Rick Kaplan, president of CNN/ U.S., and Peter Arnett, the Pulitzer-Prize correspondent, should resign immediately. They owe it to Ted Turner, CNN employees, their audience, Time magazine employees and subscribers, and the Time-Warner stockholders. Not only has CNN's top management made a monumental journalistic blunder airing the "Tailwind" report, but their impulse to deflect responsibility was despicable, disingenuous and insulting to those associated with CNN, past and present. Their reactions have made "Tailwind" a story not only of news gathering, but of questionable news management at CNN. As the former political director for CNN during the eighties, my phones nearly melted in the past few weeks from all the calls I have received on the subject. Morally and professionally outraged, I confronted Mr. Johnson myself out of respect for my former CNN colleagues. The following account of events at CNN is based on my conversations with over 30 of my former collagues there. Mr. Johnson and I have never met, but I assured him that he had a "morale revolution" on his hands in the news rooms because of the extraordinary remark Mr. Kaplan made on CNN's "Reliable Sources" that "the producers fell in love with the story." But what about Mr. Kaplan's own role in the story? His comment, which deflects attention from his role, sparked a rebellion at CNN. Internally, CNNers' comments reveal their outrage. Some are accusing Mr. Kaplan of being "disingenuous," and "Clintonesque by deflecting responsibility." His explanation is "too little too late, and it breaks my heart!" "There is no reservoir of goodwill [for him]." Almost two weeks after the retraction, "anger is pervasive." Some are "seething." "This is the most depressing time ever." What about Mr. Kaplan's culpability? He reviewed the report, read the script, ordered last-minute edits, and was in the control room the weekend before "Newsstand" debuted. Mr. Johnson has told sources that he had great reservations about the report and that Mr. Kaplan talked him into airing it. But Mr. Kaplan's strength lies in the "looks" of his television productions. Why was Mr. Johnson relying on Mr. Kaplan's editorial judgment? Mr. Kaplan is no stranger to controversy. He was the hands-on producer for CNN's Ohio State University Town Meeting on Iraq earlier this year. He was the Executive Producer for "Prime Time Live" when ABC News aired the Food Lion story, which resulted in litigation and embarrassment to ABC. Mr. Kaplan was fined $7,500 for his role in that one. By the end of 1997, CNN was under budget for news gathering to a tune of $10 million. Since then, news gathering has been overspending $1 million on a monthly average. Since Mr. Kaplan arrived at CNN in August 1997, 17 news feature employees were laid off, and their departures were handled poorly. But the biggest battle on Mr. Kaplan's hands results from his abusive managerial style. He is notorious for shrieking "You should die" at colleagues at CNN, as he used to at ABC. Peter Arnett, who always has prided himself as a Pulitzer Prize correspondent for his Vietnam reporting, should have blasted into high gear, demanding irrefutability on "Tailwind." As seasoned as he is, Mr. Arnett should have known that when confronting the military over a black operation, you have to have incontrovertible evidence. Adding his name to the Time companion piece for "marketing" purposes is indefensible. Some news organizations promote stars, but if one is a self-promoting star, covering one's own "prized" and "prided" beat, you do not get to shirk responsibility. You deserve more than a reprimanded. David Kohler, CNN's legal counsel, who was assigned to vet the Tailwind report initially, called Floyd Abrams, the distinguished First Amendment lawyer, at Tom Johnson's request. Mr. Johnson wanted Abrams to analyze Tailwind -- Was it true? Was it provable? Should it have been reported? According to Mr. Abrams, he requested that the two producers, April Oliver and Jack Smith, turn over their tapes, notes, sources and write a paper, which they did. Mr. Abrams spoke with Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan. He never called Mr. Arnett during the examination. What is shocking is what did not happen. Mr. Abrams was specifically asked by Mr. Johnson not to examine the human factor of how "Tailwind" made it to air. But news reports don't just saunter onto the airwaves. There is a human component, and examining that is essential to getting to the truth. Mr. Johnson neglected this obvious angle. Was it too close for comfort? Why, for instance, was Major Gen. Perry Smith cut out of the loop by Mr. Kaplan? Why were the recommendations of CNN's Washington Bureau Chief, Frank Sesno, and Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre's ignored? The night before CNN's retraction, Messrs. Arnett and Smith were summoned to Atlanta. Ms. Oliver could not attend because she was in her ninth month of pregnancy. The CNN brass, including Mr. Abrams, were braced. As the group was about to go over the Abrams report, Mr. Smith interrupted "NewsStand" producer Pam Hill and the boys and told them that April Oliver's voice was needed. Steve Korn, CNN's chief operating officer, demurred, saying that she didn't deserve to be in the room. (Earlier that day, Ms. Oliver contacted Mr. Kaplan and informed him that she was transmitting a memo to him to once again, protesting Mr. Kaplan's gag order on her and Mr. Smith. Mr. Kaplan did not want the memo and told her not to send it. Ms. Oliver sent it anyway.) Mr. Smith, class act that he is, then suggested that he and Mr. Kohler get on the next plane to Washington, in order to review Mr. Abrams' report with Oliver. Mr. Kohler didn't stir. Mr. Smith rose, walked out, caught a flight to Washington, and he and Ms. Oliver scrutinized the report. Mr. Smith and Ms. Oliver were promised a conference call with Mr. Kohler and Mr. Abrams the next day at noon. To Mr. Smith's stunned amazement, he was informed that Pamela Hill had resigned; that he and Ms. Oliver had been fired; and that the retraction had been released -- all before the promised conference call. On Monday morning, July 6, after Mr. Kaplan's CNN performance on "Reliable Sources," Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan held a company-wide conference call. Hundreds of employees tuned in. The two performed their mea culpas, asked for forgiveness, stated their positions, and accepted questions. Mr. Kaplan even apologized for not admitting on "Reliable Sources" that he was more involved in the production of the report than he had acknowledged publicly on CNN. Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan admitted that they were ultimately responsible. So why didn't Mr. Johnson resign? He offered Ted Turner his resignation twice, but Mr. Turner turned it down. Why didn't Mr. Kaplan resign? Well, he "discussed it" with Mr. Johnson, but concluded that he was not part of the investigative team and that information was kept from him. (Huh?) When the CNN family started demanding Mr. Arnett's head on a platter, Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan announced that they had new information about Mr. Arnett's involvement and that they were reassessing his position. But does Mr. Johnson yet know the extent of Mr. Kaplan's role? When confronted with the fact that Mr. Kaplan had been involved in the editing process, Mr. Johnson seemed somewhat surprised, stating, "I don't know anything about that." Would that make have made a difference in his decision? Mr. Johnson did not want to "speculate on a hypothetical." A second conference call occurred later that day for those who missed the first confessional or just wanted more. The audience grew. This time, Mr. Arnett called in to defend his reputation. Mr. Arnett maintained that he had done so much for CNN, given speeches, even risked his life. The CNN brass bought this argument. Mr. Arnett's colleagues still don't. Then for the benefit of the graveyard shift, Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan had a third conference call the next morning. This time the troops were more subdued, but the eloquence of one editor was riveting, as he confronted Mr. Kaplan about his abusive managerial style. Ted Turner's vision, my former colleagues' solid journalistic skills, their sweat and tears, and boldness, make CNN one of the most formidable news operations in the business. CNN earned its credibility. But my former colleagues' courage to demand an explanation from management and not buy into blatant attempts to deny culpability is what makes me proud to have been associated with CNN. During the first staff conference call, Steve Korn stated that CNN had been on the air for 18 years and that they were lucky that this hadn't happened before. Mary Tillotson, a CNN veteran and real pro, rose to the occasion and told Mr. Korn that luck had nothing to do with it. I don't know whether the Tailwind charges are true or false. The producers are so passionate about their sources that they may prove all the critics dead wrong someday. But a story of this magnitude must be solid as a rock for air. If the producers needed more time, then management should have given them that, not help rush the program to air. Had Messrs. Johnson, Kaplan and Arnett demanded to know more facts or asked for more time, maybe none of this would have happened. The way management handled the aftermath is not unlike the way it handled Tailwind itself. If Messrs. Arnett and Kaplan don't have the class to resign, and if Mr. Johnson doesn't have the guts to fire them, then Mr. Johnson ought to be fired as well. The three of them demonstrate that success has fathers and failure is an orphan. CNN deserves better than top executives and star reporters lacking character. As one senior executive stated, "Heads should roll from the top down. This is a management problem." Christine Dolan, an independent producer, is former political director for CNN. ==================================================================== Saving face at CNN By Suzanne Fields THE WASHINGTON TIMES Peter Arnett saved his career at CNN, reprimanded but still a hero for our time. His is the celebrity that comes with a familiar face, famous for being seen on the screen. He was once a man judged (not always favorably) on the substance of his reporting, but that was a long time ago. There are more important things to do today than reporting which takes time and sweat. There's image to maintain. You have to look the part, too. Mr. Arnett put his job in jeopardy with his participation in a story for "NewsStand," the premier program collaboration of CNN and Time magazine, since repudiated by nearly all hands. He interviewed several men for the story, including Art Bishop, a pilot on the mission, whose interview was cut at the last minute. The pilot refuted the assertion that the United States used nerve gas to kill American "defectors" in Laos. Mr. Arnett was busy travelling during most of the research and preparation for the program, but he had no trouble taking a large part of the initial credit for the television "magazine" story. When the New York Times questioned whether he pushed to have his interview with the pilot included, which any newspaper reporter and many TV reporters would regard as elementary, he offered an extraordinary defense: "The producers took the tape and I was gone. I was the face." I was the face. That's good. That's really good. He also shared a by-line in Time magazine for the written account. Face recognition spills over into name recognition. What would we think of a scientist putting his name on fraudulent research? In science the false data can affect people's lives directly. In journalism fraudulent stories ruin reputations. This story challenged the integrity of the United States military, regarded by certain TV journalists, no doubt, as a way to enhance reputations. The '60s live. Peter Arnett is not alone in this tawdry episode. There are villains to go around. The public to the shame of everyone in our trade, is aware of most of them. Just as shameful is the relentless sanctimony that passes for intellectual rigor in this episode. Sanctimony is the hypocrisy that hides behind piety, a disingenuous moral defense to excuse sloppy logic and the absence of facts. Sanctimony flourishes even in the retractions by CNN and Time executives. "We respect the forthright way that CNN handled their reinvestigation. . . ." says Time magazine in its apology. "We have leaned a lot from the mistakes made." That passive voice sounds familiar. Observes media critic Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal: "The retractions were not acts of high principle but rather necessities forced by the collapse of a sensational story depicting the U.S. military as gung-ho perpetrators of an atrocious war crime." Reporting is about facts. Opinion, like mine, is reserved for the commentary pages. But such distinctions have been blurred since investigative reporting became radical chic. Hot stories now require self-righteous justifications. What made CNN think it could get by with this story is the belief that the U.S. military is bad. Didn't the Vietnam War prove that? Peter Arnett's past reporting reflects that mind-set. Rick Kaplan, the president of CNN, appreciates "the passion" his reporters took to the story. "I think what they did was fall in love with their reporting and come to believe their reporting despite what they might have been learning." Passion belongs in the personal advertisements, not news stories. Facts, not feelings, are supposed to be the reporter's stock in trade. A dangerous mentality lurks in the newsroom, substituting self-righteousneses for hard data, attitude for evidence, mock solemnity passes for significance. That's inevitable when credibility depends on a familiar face. The Asians have a phrase for public hypocrisy. "Saving face" saved Peter Arnett's job, but not his credibility. ==================================================================== April, Pat and Karen By Richard Grenier THE WASHINGTON TIMES First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, while unequivocally condemning the CNN-Time story about Tailwind (the alleged secret nerve-gas raid into Laos in pursuit of defectors during the Vietnam War) was nonetheless indulgent toward the people who actually produced the story for CNN. He credited them after all with great "sincerity." But how much is sincerity worth coming from a person of fanatic temperament, or in the grip of some overpowering conviction? Years ago I spent some two weeks in the company of Jane Fonda in her "Hanoi Jane" period. China was then in the throes of its Cultural Revolution, which killed tens of millions, but Jane patiently and kindly explained to me that in Mao's China there was no such thing as coercion. Chinese authorities would pick up a prostitute on the street in Shanghai, for example, bring her to a reeducation center, and after a time, ask her if she was ready, as a productive citizen, to reenter their socialist society. Some of the girls would say yes, Jane told me, while others freely said no. They volunteered to go back to the labor camps, feeling they needed more reeducation. And, God, was Jane sincere. She'd never set foot in China --where I'd spent some time -- but she knew in her bones that this was the way a peace-loving socialist society should function. You couldn't argue with her. Her sincerity was painful. There was no coercion in China, period. I've little doubt Jane could have carried out all 200 interviews April Oliver says were conducted on her Tailwind story and come away with the same conclusion: that the U.S. used nerve gas in Laos, and that the military sent out at least this one mission to kill American defectors. As for "sincerity," after all, Adolf Hitler was sincere in his conviction that Jews were a parasitical excrescence, and that the Aryan race would gain greatly if they were exterminated. Now there's sincerity for you. A great crisis in journalism and reporting has erupted in this country, but of the many names involved in the crisis I will pick only three, all quintessentially sincere: April Oliver herself, former Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith and, believe it or not, Karen Finley, presently starring in a tiny New York theatre in "Return of the Chocolate-Smeared Woman." April Oliver has recently taken to television to denounce her critics. Her Tailwind thesis has been torn to pieces by virtually every American press institution of every shade and description, as well as by all ex-military people with knowledge of "black" operations. But Miss Oliver is still deeply convinced of the accuracy of her story, hailing it as a monument of "gutsy" American journalism, the "culmination" of her career. And she's accused her superiors, her inferiors, her alleged informants, and everyone else who has contradicted her of cowardice and "caving in" to official pressure. She seems to invoke everything but black helicopters to explain how the military-intelligence complex has kept the Tailwind nerve-gas operation secret for 27 years and is currently silencing her opponents, even forcing them to change their stories to repudiate her account. But why, in the whole Vietnam War, should the U.S. have decided to use nerve gas on only one operation? It recalls the downed American pilots of the Korean War who, when prisoners of the Chinese, confessed to dropping "germ bombs." "Experimentally," said Western communists. We cross a line when we come to the imaginative reporting of Patricia Smith, the lady columnist recently sacked by the Boston Globe for fabricating not only quotes but whole people, whole incidents. But Miss Smith was defiant. Also a poet, she declared her concocted stories were "essentially true." But what does that mean? Regardless of contradictory facts, and her brazen manipulation of interviews, Miss Oliver's feeling is doubtless that her account of Tailwind is also "essentially true." Now Miss Smith is explicit in her personal definition of truth, while Miss Oliver seems to be a victim of self-delusion (a common enough human phenomenon where self-interest is at stake). A poetic inner voice seems to be speaking to Miss Oliver and telling her that her account of Tailwind -- considered an abomination by almost the entire press -- is also essentially true. She seems extraordinarily sincere. Mr. Abrams tells us that Miss Oliver and partner approached the Tailwind story with no ideological bias. But it appears evident enough that she (and her superiors) approached the story with a Seymour Hersh/My Lai big splash bias. CNN and Time magazine have both apologetically retracted the whole story. It goes without saying that if we accept Miss Smith's "essential truth" criterion, we're in really hot water. Because Karen Finley's back -- the lady celebrated for using taxpayer money to publicly smear her nude breasts with chocolate sauce in her "performance art." Appearing in a tiny off-off-Broadway theatre, performing "Return of the Chocolate-Smeared Woman" for what seemed to be a largely lesbian audience, Miss Finley has launched again into her man-hating diatribes. Few reviewers have reported this, but she shrieks her whole text, as before, as if in the grip of an uncontrollable hysterical fit. Audiences are accustomed to seeing her bare breasts, so this time Miss Finley also takes off her pants. How's that for sincerity? The real novelty this time around is that she screams out physical details of blow-by-blow sexual encounters with a whole string of leading male politicians of both parties, from President Clinton on down. But Miss Finley doubtless feels her screaming, sexual wrestling events -- matched as she is against abusive males -- are all "essentially true." And unfortunately Miss Finley's notion of truth has now invaded journalism. ================================================================ It appears that the cardinal sin in the view of the wimp culture is that of being "judgmental." The only way to avoid being judgmental is to have no principles. We were given our brains in order to make judgements, and that includes value judgements. Values, by definition, are valuable, so by all means let us be judgmental! Jump into the argument and win! Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, 7/98 ================================================================ "The desire to order other people around and make them conform to one own's vision takes many forms." - Thomas Sowell Which emphasizes the great difference between those of us who are activist gun owners and other "extremists" who devote themselves to causes. Unlike the zealots who agitate for other causes, from tobacco bans to bunny hugging, we shooters have no wish to push other people around. Our major desire is that they leave us alone. It is odd that nobody has mentioned that difference before. Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, 7/98 ================================================================= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: pdml] An Essay You Must Read (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1998 13:37:20 PST On Jul 13, by way of Ann Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.america-collins.com/essay-art1.htm An Essay You Must Read LAND-MINE LEGISLATION by Claire Wolfe Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America today. As you read, consider what all these have in common. 1. A national database of employed people. 2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is (among other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients. 3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign citizenship. 4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an unconstitutional ex postfacto law and the first law ever to remove people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor. 5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents could become federal criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting into vehicles. 6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude. 7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups "Terrorists" - without stating any reason and without the possibility of appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and membership lists must be turned over to the government. 8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain classes of people. 9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses carrying Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, 2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration or the Passport Office or any other Federal agency or any State or local government agency may accept for any evidentiary purpose a State driver's license or identification document in a form other than [one issued with a verified Social Security number and 'security features']." 10. And my personal favorite - a national database, now being constructed, that will contain every exchange and observation that takes place in your doctor's office. This includes records of your prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also includes - by law - any statements you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid may be on drugs...... Doc, I've been so stressed out lately I feel about ready to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes about your mental or physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with your knowledge or not. For the time being, there will be zero (count 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on this data. But don't worry, your government will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards" in a few years. All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What else do they have in common? Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, "They're all unconstitutional." True. My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted, "They all SUUUCK!" Also true. But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product of the 104th Congress. Every one of the horrors above was imposed upon you by the Congress of the Republican-Revolution -- the Congress that pledged to "get government off your back." BURYING TIME BOMBS All of the above became law by being buried in larger bills. In many cases, they are hidden sneak attacks upon individual liberties that were neither debated on the floor of Congress nor reported in the media. For instance, three of the most horrific items (the health care database, asset confiscation for foreign residency and the 100 pages of health care crimes) were hidden in the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HR 3103). You didn't hear about them at the time because the media was too busy celebrating this moderate, compromise bill that "simply" ensured that no American would ever lose insurance coverage due to a job change or a Pre-existing condition. Your legislator may not have heard about them, either. Because he or she didn't care enough to do so. The fact is, most legislators don't even read the laws they inflict upon the public. They read the title of the bill (which may be something like "The Save the Sweet Widdle Babies from Gun Violence by Drooling Drug Fiends Act of 1984"). They read summaries, which are often prepared by the very agencies or groups pushing the bill. And they vote according to various deals or pressures. It also sometimes happens that the most horrible provisions are sneaked into bills during conference committee negotiations, after both House and Senate have voted on their separate versions of the bills. The conference committee process is supposed simply to reconcile differences between two versions of a bill. But power brokers use it for purposes of their own, adding what they wish. Then members of the House and Senate vote on the final, unified version of the bill, often in a great rush, and often without even having the amended text available for review. I have even heard (though I cannot verify) that stealth provisions were written into some bills after all the voting has taken place. Someone with a hidden agenda simply edits them in to suit his or her own purposes. So these time bombs become "law" without ever having been voted on by anybody. And who's to know? If congress people don't even read legislation before they vote on it, why would they bother reading it afterward? Are power brokers capable of such chicanery? Do we even need to ask? Is the computer system in which bills are stored vulnerable to tampering by people within or outside of Congress? We certainly should ask. Whether your legislators were ignorant of the infamy they were perpetrating, or whether they knew, one thing is absolutely certain: The Constitution, your legislator's oath to it, and your inalienable rights (which precede the Constitution) never entered into anyone's consideration. Ironically, you may recall that one of the early pledges of Newt Gingrich and Company was to stop these stealth attacks. Very early in the 104th Congress, the Republican leadership declared that, henceforth, all bills would deal only with the subject matter named in the title of the bill. When, at the beginning of the first session of the 104th, pro-gun Republicans attempted to attach a repeal of the "assault weapons" ban to another bill, House leaders dismissed their amendment as not being "germane." After that self-righteous and successful attempt to prevent pro-freedom stealth legislation, Congress people turned right around and got back to the dirty old business of practicing all the anti-freedom stealth they were capable of. STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT Three other items on my list (ATF funding, gun confiscation and school zone roadblocks) were also buried in a big bill - HR 3610, the budget appropriation passed near the end of the second session of the 104th Congress. No legislator can claim to have been unaware of these three because they were brought to public attention by gun-rights groups and hotly debated in both Congress and the media. Yet some 90 percent of all congress people voted for them including many who claim to be ardent protectors of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Why? Well, in the case of my wrapped-in-the-flag, allegedly pro-gun, Republican congressperson: "Bill Clinton made me do it!" Okay, I paraphrase. What she actually said was more like, "It was part of a budget appropriations package. The public got mad at us for shutting the government down in 1994. If we hadn't voted for this budget bill, they might have elected a Democratic legislature in 1996 - and you wouldn't want THAT, would you?" Oh heavens, no I'd much rather be enslaved by people who spell their name with an R than people who spell their name with a D. Makes all the difference in the world! HOW SNEAK ATTACKS ARE JUSTIFIED The Republicans are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton "forced" them to pass certain legislation by threatening to veto anything they sent to the White House that didn't meet his specs. In other cases (as with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill), they proudly proclaim their misdeeds in the name of bipartisanship - while carefully forgetting -to mention the true nature of what they're doing. In still others, they trumpet their triumph over the evil Democrats and claim the mantle of limited government while sticking it to us and to the Constitution. The national database of workers was in the welfare reform bill they "forced" Clinton to accept. The requirement for SS numbers and ominous "security" devices on drivers licenses originated in their very own Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, HR 2202. Another common trick, called to my attention by Redmon Barbry, publisher of the electronic magazine Fratricide, is to hide duplicate or near-duplicate provisions in several bills. Then, when the Supreme Court declares Section A of Law Z to be -unconstitutional, its kissing cousin, Section B of Law Y, remains to rule us. Sometimes this particular form of trickery is done even more brazenly; when the Supreme Court, in its Lopez decision, declared federal-level school zone gun bans unconstitutional because Congress demonstrated no jurisdiction, Congress brassily changed a few words. They claimed that school zones fell under the heading of "interstate commerce." Then they sneaked the provision into HR 3610, where it became "law" once again. When angry voters upbraid congress people about some Big Brotherish horror they've inflicted upon the country by stealth, they claim lack of knowledge, lack of time, party pressure, public pressure, or they justify themselves by claiming that the rest of the bill was "good". The simple fact is that, regardless of what reasons legislators may claim, the U.S. Congress has passed more Big Brother legislation in the last two years - more laws to enable tracking, spying and controlling - than any Democratic congress ever passed. And they have done it, in large part, in secret. Redmon Barbry put it best: "We the people have the right to expect our elected representatives to read, comprehend and master the bills they vote on. If this means Congress passes only 50 bills per session instead of 5,000, so be it. As far as I am concerned, whoever subverts this process is committing treason." By whatever means the deed is done, there is no acceptable excuse for voting against the Constitution, voting for tyranny. And I would add to Redmon's comments: Those who do read the bills, then knowingly vote to ravage our liberties, are doubly guilty. But when do the treason trials begin? BILLS AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UGLY AGENDA The truth is that these tiny, buried provisions are often the real intent of the law, and that the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages that surround them are sometimes nothing more than elaborate window dressing. These tiny time bombs are placed there at the behest of federal police agencies or other power groups whose agenda is not clearly visible to us. And their impact is felt long after the outward intent of the bill has been forgotten. Civil forfeiture - now one of the plagues of the nation was first introduced in the 1970s as one of those buried, almost unnoticed provisions of a larger law. One wonders why on earth a "health care bill" carried a provision to confiscate the assets of people who become frightened or discouraged enough to leave the country. (In fact, the entire bill was an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code. Go figure.) I think we all realize by now that that database of employed people will still be around enabling government to track our locations (and heaven knows what else. about us, as the database is enhanced and expanded) long after the touted benefits of "welfare reform" have failed to materialize. And most grimly of all, our drivers licenses will be our de facto national ID card long after immigrants have ceased to want to come to this Land of the Once Free. CONTROL REIGNS It matters not one whit whether the people controlling you call themselves R's or D's, liberals or conservatives, socialists or even (I hate to admit it) libertarians. It doesn't matter whether they vote for these horrors because they're not paying attention or because they actually like such things. What matters is that the pace of totalitarianism is increasing. And it is coming closer to our daily lives all the time. Once your state passes the enabling legislation (under threat of losing "federal welfare dollars"), it is YOUR name and Social Security number that will be entered in that employee database the moment you go to work for a new employer. It is YOU who will be unable to cash a check, board an airplane, get a passport or be allowed any dealings with any government agency if you refuse to give your SS number to the drivers license bureau. It is YOU who will be endangered by driving "illegally" if you refuse to submit to Big Brother's procedures. It is YOU whose psoriasis, manic depression or prostate troubles will soon be the reading matter of any bureaucrat with a computer. It is YOU who could be declared a member of a "foreign terrorist" organization just because you bought a book or concert tickets from some group the government doesn't like. It is YOU who could lose your home, bank account and reputation because you made a mistake on a health insurance form. Finally, when you become truly desperate for freedom, it is YOU whose assets will be seized if you try to flee this increasingly insane country. As Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged, "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." It's time to drop any pretense: We are no longer law-abiding citizens. We have lost our law-abiding status. There are simply too many laws to abide. And because of increasingly draconian penalties and electronic tracking mechanisms, our "lawbreaking" places us and our families in greater jeopardy every day. STOPPING RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT The question is: What are we going to do about it? Write a. nice, polite letter to your congressperson? Hey, if you think that'll help, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. (And it isn't your "bridge to the future," either.) Vote "better people, into office? Oh yeah, that's what we thought we were doing in 1994. Work to fight one bad bill or another? Okay. What will you do about the 10 or 20 or 100 equally horrible bills that will be passed behind your back while you were fighting that little battle? And let's say you defeat a nightmare bill this year. What, are you going to do when they sneak it back in, at the very last minute, in some "omnibus legislation" next year? And what about the horrors you don't even learn about until two or three years after they become law? Should you try fighting these laws in the courts? Where do you find the resources? Where do you find a judge who doesn't have a vested interest in bigger, more powerful government? And again, for every one case decided in favor of freedom, what do you do about the 10, 20 or 100 in which the courts decide against the Bill of Rights? Perhaps you'd consider trying to stop the onrush of these horrors with a constitutional amendment - maybe one that bans "omnibus" bills, requires that every law meet a constitutional test or requires all congress people to sign statements that they've read and understood every aspect of every bill on which they vote. Good luck! Good luck, first, on getting such an amendment passed. Then good luck getting our Constitution-scorning "leaders" to obey it. It is true that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of that vigilance has been, traditionally, keeping a watchful eye on laws and on lawbreaking lawmakers. But given the current pace of law spewing and unconstitutional regulation-writing, you could watch, plead and struggle "within the system" 24 hours a day for your entire life and end up infinitely less free than when you begin. Why throw your life away on a futile effort? Face it. If "working within the system" could halt tyranny, the tyrants would outlaw it. Why do you think they encourage you to vote, to write letters, to talk to them in public forums? It's to divert your energies. To keep you tame. 'The system" as it presently exists is nothing but a rat maze. You run around thinking you're getting somewhere. Your masters occasionally reward you with a little pellet that encourages you to believe you're accomplishing something. And in the meantime, you are as much their property and their pawn as if you were a slave. In the effort of fighting them on their terms and with their authorized and approved tools, you have given your life's energy to them as surely as if you were toiling in their cotton fields, under the lash of their overseer. The only way we're going to get off this road to Hell is if we jump off. If we, personally, as individuals, refuse to cooperate with evil. How we do that is up to each of us. I can't decide for you, nor you for me. (Unlike congress people, who think they can decide for everybody.) But this totalitarian runaway truck is never going to stop unless we stop it, in any way we can. Stopping it might include any number of things: tax resistance; public civil disobedience; wide-scale, silent non-cooperation; highly noisy non-cooperation; boycotts; secession efforts; monkey wrenching; computer hacking; dirty tricks against government agents; public shunning of employees of abusive government agencies; alternative, self-sufficient communities that provide their own medical care and utilities. There are thousands of avenues to take, and this is something most of us still need to give more thought to before we can build an effective resistance. We will each choose the courses that are right for our own circumstances, personalities and beliefs. Whatever we do, though, we must remember that we are all, already, outlaws. Not one of us can be certain going through a single day without violating some law or regulation we've never even heard of. We are all guilty in the eyes of today's law. If someone in power chooses to target us, we can all, already, be prosecuted for something. And I'm sure you know that your claims of "good intentions" won't protect you, as the similar claims of politicians protect them. Politicians are above the law. YOU are under it. Crushed under it. When you look at it that way, we have little left to lose by breaking laws creatively and purposefully. Yes, some of us will suffer horrible consequences for our lawbreaking. It is very risky to actively resist unbridled power. It is especially risky to go public with resistance (unless hundreds of thousands publicly join us), and it becomes riskier the closer we get to tyranny. For that reason, among many others, I would never recommend any particular course of action to anyone - and I hope you'll think twice before taking "advice" from anybody about things that could jeopardize your life or well-being. But if we don't resist in the best ways we know how and if a good number of us don't resist loudly and publicly - all of us will suffer the much worse consequences of living under total oppression. And whatever courses of action we choose, we must remember that this legislative "revolution" against We the People will not be stopped by politeness. It will not be stopped by requests. It will not be stopped by "working within a system" governed by those who regard us as nothing but cattle. It will not be stopped by pleading for justice from those who will resort to any degree of trickery or violence to rule us. It will not be stopped unless we are willing to risk our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honors to stop it. I think of the words of Winston Churchill: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." NOTES on the laws listed above: 1. (employee database) Welfare Reform Bill, HR 3734; became public law 104-193 on 8/22196; see section 453A. 2. (health care crimes) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96. 3. (asset confiscation for citizenship change) Same law as #2; see; sections 511-513. 4., 5., and 6. (anti-gun laws) Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610; became public law 104-208 on 9/30/96. 7. and 8. (terrorism & secret trials) Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; S 735; became public law 104-132 on 4/24/96; see all of Title III, specifically sections 302 and 219; also see all of Tide IV, specifically sections 401, 501, 502 and 503. 9. (de facto national ID card) Began life in the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, sections III, II 8, 119, 127 and 133; was eventually folded into the Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610 (which was itself formerly called the Defense Appropriations Act - but we wouldn't want to confuse anyone, here, would we?); became public law 104-208 on 9/30/96; see sections 656 and 657 among others. 10. (health care database) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96; see sections 262, 263 and 264, among others. The various provisions that make up the full horror of this database are scattered throughout the bill and may take hours to track down; this one is stealth legislation at its utmost sneakiest. And one final, final note: Although I spent aggravating hours verifying the specifics of these bills (a task I swear I will never waste my life on again!), the original list of bills at the top of this article was NOT the result of extensive research. It was simply what came off the top of my head when I thought of Big Brotherish bills from the 104th Congress. For all I know, Congress has passed 10 times more of that sort of thing. In fact, the worst "law" in the list -- #9, the de facto national ID card -- just came to my attention as I was writing this essay, thanks to the enormous efforts of Jackie - Juntti and Ed Lyon and others, who researched the law. Think of it: Thanks to congressional stealth tactics, we had the long-dreaded national ID card legislation for five months, without a whisper of discussion, before freedom activists began to find out about it. Makes you wonder what else might be lurking out there, doesn't it? And on that cheery note - THE END Copyrighted by Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, provided the article is reprinted in full and that any reprint is accompanied by this copyright statement 1997 America-Collins 5736 Highway 42 North, Forsyth, GA 31029 Office: 912-994-4064 Fax: 912-994-4066 Voice Mail: 800-286-0558 E-Mail: america-collins@america-collins.com http://www.america-collins.com APFN@netbox.com APFN WEB: http://www.esotericworldnews.com/apfncont.htm American Patriot Friends Network (APFN) Without Justice, there is JUST_US! The following items were added to GAO's World Wide Web site in Portable Document (PDF) format. - Bosnia Peace Operation: Pace of Implementing the Dayton Accelerated as International Involvement Increased. NSIAD-98-138. 151 pp plus 11 appendices (51 pp.) June 5, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns98138.pdf - Civil Service Reform: Observations on Demonstration Authority, the Use of Official Time, and the Administrative Redress System. T-GGD-98-160. 17 pp. plus 1 appendix (1 pp.) June 24, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg98160t.pdf - Community Development: Early Results of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund's Programs. T-RCED-98-229. 14 pp. June 17, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc98229t.pdf - Defense Acquisition Organizations: Status of Workforce Reductions. NSIAD-98-161. 18 pp. plus 2 appendices (2 pp.) June 29, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns98161.pdf - Drug Control: An Overview of U.S. Counterdrug Intelligence Activities. NSIAD-98-142. 23 pp. plus 4 appendices (41 pp.) June 25, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns98142.pdf - Financial Management: Training of DOD Financial Managers Could Be Enhanced. AIMD-98-126. 19 pp. plus 4 appendices (8 pp.) June 24, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai98126.pdf - Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and Performance Information. GGD-98-137. 38 pp. plus 2 appendices (34 pp.) June 22, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg98137.pdf - Law Enforcement: Information on Drug-Related Police Corruption. GGD-98-111. 36 pp. plus 4 appendices (7 pp.) May 28, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg98111.pdf - Money Laundering: FinCEN's Law Enforcement Support Role Is Evolving. GGD-98-117. 43 pp. plus 7 appendices (32 pp.) June 19, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg98117.pdf - Results Act: Observations on Treasury's Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan. GGD-98-149. 20 pp. June 30, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg98149.pdf - School Finance: State Efforts to Equalize Funding Between Wealthy and Poor School Districts. HEHS-98-92. 61 pp. plus 7 appendices (40 pp.) June 16, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he98092.pdf - Social Security Administration: Technical and Performance Challenges Threaten Progress of Modernization. AIMD-98-136. 19 pp. plus 2 appendices (6 pp.) June 19, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai98136.pdf - Space Station: U.S. Life-Cycle Funding Requirements. T-NSIAD-98-212. 8 pp. plus 1 appendix (1 pp.) June 24, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns98212t.pdf - Tax Administration: IRS Measures Could Provide a More Balanced Picture of Audit Results and Costs. GGD-98-128. 23 pp. plus 6 appendices (15 pp.) June 23, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg98128.pdf - Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Testing and Other Challenges Confronting Federal Agencies. T-AIMD-98-218. 12 pp. June 22, 1998. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai98218t.pdf [------------------------- 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: Harass Congress for Free (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1998 13:34:13 PST On Jul 13, SAAMIDC@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FYI -- it'd be a good time to hit them on killing the NICS tax, particularly in the Senate, where the amendment will have to be shoved into the Commerce- State-Justice Approps. bill on the floor. PGO'M. Wash., D.C. >MONDAY >JULY 13, 1998 > >New toll-free hotline to Congress >Line working again after being shut down for months > >Congress is making a new toll-free number available for >citizens who would like to make their voices heard in > Washington. > >The new number for the U.S. Capitol switchboard is >1-800-504-0031. > >© 1998 Western Journalism Center [------------------------- 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: The Darkness Deepens: Four Weeks Until Dictatorship (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1998 13:36:19 PST On Jul 13, Exegesis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Exegesis =20 A Compass For Moral Excellence Published Worldwide From Washington=20 July 14, 1998 The Darkness Deepens: Four Weeks Until Dictatorship=20 "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few or many and whether hereditary, self appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 47 "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." =20 =20 Paul Begala, Clinton Presidential Aide, July 1998=20 Many folks have forgotten that Adolf Hitler did not seize power in 1933. He was elected by popular vote in an election a great deal less rigged than the 1996 US Presidential election. Sixty-five years later, though our attention has rightly been drawn frequently to the importance of remembering the Holocaust, few have even noticed that the United States stands perilously close to dictatorship, a tragic irony given the immense dimensions of the Jewish presence in Hollywood, the media and the White House. But unless Congress, Kenneth Starr, impeachment proceedings or the Good Lord intervenes, Bill Clinton, with his long history of abuses of office, drugs, women and human life, will officially become The Dictator of America. =20 Remarkably, few Americans have the slightest clue that such a tragedy is about to occur. And the so-called media will probably breathe not a word about it when it happens. They will bear equal responsibility with the perpetrator for the impending loss of liberty. If it is true that more Americans get their lies from ABC than from any other source, as is claimed, Disney, which owns ABC, will be guilty of the greatest complicity, and CNN will really owe the American people an apology - in addition to apologies for the countless other lies they and the networks have broadcast over the years: the lies of trivia, the lies of false opinion polls, the lies of bias, the lies of nothink and doublethink, and the lies of omission. On August 12, unless Congress vetoes it with a two-thirds vote, Executive Order 13083 will become law. The order was signed by Mr. Clinton on May 14 in a hotel room in Birmingham, England while he was attending the G7 Summit. It effectively terminates States' rights and the authority of Congress in many areas of national life. Here is the exact wording of the most relevant part: "Section 3, (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries. (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs. (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards. (4) When decentralization increases the cost of government, imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer. (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties. (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States. (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities. (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations. (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments.=20 This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order." WILLIAM J. CLINTON,=20 THE WHITE HOUSE,=20 May 14, 1998 As you will have deduced, this order gives the President the ability to do anything he wishes without being subjected to the constraints of the Checks and Balances imposed by the Constitution to safeguard liberty.=20 Phrases like "uniform national standards" and "regulatory goals" should send a chill up the spine. Surely the goal of a free people is the elimination of regulations and standards? But America is no longer free. You don't believe this is happening? Why? Because the language sounds innocuous enough? Yet did you believe the deaths of Ron Brown, Vincent =46oster and 105 other Clinton associates? They're all very, very dead.=20 Did you believe that Princess Diana could be murdered so blatantly?=20 She's dead too. Did you believe that innocent civilians could be slaughtered at Waco, Oklahoma City and in numerous "accidents", plane crashes and bombings? They're all extremely dead. When you look at what Mr. Clinton and his global associates have already accomplished, the truth begins to glimmer through the innocuous language. =20 As Hayek observed, "[Totalitarian propaganda] are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are so characteristic as the complete perversion of language." (The Road to Serfdom, 1944). And there has been no greater pervert, especially of language, than the current occupant of the Oval Office. In some ways, it seems absurd to compare Bill Clinton with Adolf Hitler. First, Mr. Clinton does not wear a mustache. Secondly, though one never knows what he really believes, he does not seem to hate Jews. Indeed, many Jewish people have been his dutiful servants. Some have climbed into bed with him, figuratively and literally. Thirdly, he has no territorial ambitions. On the contrary, he has surrendered the United States to Communist China. =20 But there are similarities. Like Hitler, Bill Clinton was brought up by an indulgent, doting mother with an absent father. Like Hitler, Clinton has come to be deluded by his own prowess. After all, if he can get away with a few audacious crimes, why not order more? And like Hitler, he rose to power claiming to be defending the poor and the downtrodden, when in reality, he is the one who has been goose-stepping all over the rights and liberties of the poor, downtrodden, American people. =20 There seems little doubt that he who proclaimed the era of big government to be over has been reading "Mein Kampf", presumably while obtaining relief from kneeling interns. As Hitler said: "The broad mass of a nation=8Awill more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." (Chapter 10) And no lies are bigger than those the Clinton-run media have been daily pumping into America's living rooms. Hitler also wrote "a great number of basically different enemies must always be described as belonging to the same group, so that as far as the mass of your followers is concerned, the battle is being waged against a single enemy. This strengthens the belief in the rightness of your cause." Thus it is possible for every disaster, especially those Clinton himself has orchestrated, to be blamed on "a vast right wing conspiracy". So what can we do between now and August 12? If you call Congress (202-225 3121), you might ask for Ron Paul (R-TX) or Bob Barr (R-GA), two of the few who care enough about freedom to be willing to act to preserve it. If you are still wondering how can this happen with a Republican Congress, here are some recent additions to the law (We are obliged to WorldNet Daily's Claire Wolfe for compiling the list. You can and should read WorldNet Daily at http://www.worldnetdaily.com.) 1. A national database of all employed people. 2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes", for which the penalty includes seizure of assets. 3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign citizenship. 4. The largest gun confiscation act in US history - which is also an unconstitutional ex-postfacto law and the first law ever to remove individual constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor. 5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones, where random roadblocks may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents can be deemed criminals just by stepping outside their doors. 6. Increased funding for the hated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and =46irearms, infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude. 7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups "terrorists"- without stating any reason and without the possibility of appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and membership lists must be turned over to the government. 8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain classes of people. 9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses carrying Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, 2000. =20 10. A national database to contain every exchange that takes place in doctors' offices, including prescription records, and, by law, any statements you make and any observations your doctor makes about your mental or physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with your knowledge or not.=20 Other than being invasive and unconstitutional, what do these laws have in common? They were all passed by the Republican Congress, the very same folks who pledged to "get government off your back". =20 Long ago, the Two-Party/Media axis seized power in America. On August 12, the Land of the Free will become de jure into what it already is de facto: a dictatorship. As we pray for deliverance from tyranny, and "put on the full armor of God so you can take your stand against the devil's schemes" (Ephesians 6:11), let us urgently reread Churchill, and brace ourselves to do what is necessary to regain our liberty. And let us vow never again to be distracted as evil men attempt to enslave us. =87 Steve Myers =D7 Editor=20 ________________________________________________________________________ Now: More Important Than Ever! ************************ AMERICAN RENEWAL DAY ************************ Join Us For American Renewal Day! The most exciting event of the summer! A Day Of Spiritual, Moral and Financial Refreshment with Alan Keyes and Howard Phillips Saturday, August 8, 1998: Washington DC Westpark Hotel, Route 7 at Westpark Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102 8:30 am: An Inspiring Prayer Breakfast with Special Guests * Os Guinness, Best-selling Christian Author * Dr. Robert Norris, Senior Pastor, 4th Presbyterian Church, Bethesda, MD * Revd. Jeffrey Ziegler, Moderator, Association of Free Reformed Churches 11:00 am and 2:30 pm: Partners in Prosperity * Learn how to achieve financial independence with your own home-based business. 12:30 pm: Campaign Leadership Lunch=20 How to win elections without spending a fortune * Bob Winford, Author, The Winford Strategy, Political Strategist and Consultant 4:00 pm: Advanced Campaign Strategy * Bob Winford, Author, The Winford Strategy, Political Strategist and Consultant 6:00 pm VIP Reception Have your photograph taken with Alan Keyes and other American Renewal Day guests! ____________________________________________________________________________= ________ 7:00 pm Grand Gala Banquet * Alan Keyes, One of America's foremost orators and distinguished moral leaders whose message inspires the heart and challenges the mind. * Howard Phillips, Leader and Chairman, US Taxpayers Party * Steve Myers, Editor, Exegesis and President, The Global Opportunity =46oundation ____________________________________________________________________________= ________ =46or hotel accommodation at special discount rates, call 1-800 533 3301=20 Child Care will be available at all events =46or Reservations: complete and mail the form at http://www.sm.org/events Tickets are selling fast! =20 Space is limited! =20 Reserve yours now! =20 =20 _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ExTel Worldwide Telecommunications Services =46OR HUGE SAVINGS ON YOUR PHONE BILL, please don't delay a visit to=20 http://www.sm.org/extel We recommend:=20 =20 US domestic calls: Telco - http://ld.net/telco/?sm.org Calling Cards: Just 15.9 cents a minute - http://ld.net/roadtel/?sm.org Prepaid Calling Cards: Just 14 cents a minute - http://moneysaver.net/?sm.org MCI for an overall savings package - http://www.sm.org/extel Whichever service you'd like to use, you'll find more information and a sign up form on our web page at http://www.sm.org/extel _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ =20 We welcome your letters to the editor. =20 Please write to editor@sm.org Exegesis=20 http://www.sm.org/exegesis =A9 Exegesis 1998 Post Office Box 789, McLean, Virginia 22101, USA _________________________________________________ =20 ______________________________________ To subscribe, please send an email to: requests@talklist.com with SUBSCRIBE EXEGESIS in the BODY of the message. To unsubscribe please send an email to: requests@talklist.com with UNSUBSCRIBE EXEGESIS in the BODY of the message. Letters to the Editor should be addressed to: editor@sm.org For more information about Exegesis, please visit http://www.sm.org/exegesis [------------------------- 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: Paul M Watson Subject: The Long March to Long Beach / Can you spare 18 billion (fwd) Date: 14 Jul 1998 11:44:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =20 =20 TUESDAY JULY 14, 1998=20 =20 =20 =20 The long march to Long Beach=20 =20 The high-level fix appears to be in to base the China Overseas Shipping Co., a Chinese military front, in Long Beach, Calif.=20 Last week, Judge Peter Lichtman cleared a Los Angeles County courtroom of all spectators before issuing a ruling favorable to Washington's headlong desire to hand over the strategic former naval base to the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Thus, the long march to Long Beach continues.=20 The wacky idea was formulated right in the Oval Office following one of those visits by Chinese arms dealers who dumped money into President Clinton's 1996 election campaign. Long Beach city officials, oblivious to the national security concerns of the plan, saw it as a bonanza for local commerce and jobs.=20 China's interest in Long Beach is as understandable as Beijing's desire to take control of the Panama Canal. But there's even more to the story than meets the eye -- more than most of the opposition to the plan have ever imagined.=20 China also wants COSCO, which serves as an intelligence-gathering operation for the PLA, located near the multinational Sea Launch project, which will use its Long Beach base to launch dozens of satellites into space from equatorial ocean locations. The Russian company RSC-Energia is a partner in Sea Launch along with Boeing. RSC-Energia is as closely tied to Russian military intelligence as COSCO is to Chinese military intelligence.=20 The Sea Launch Commander, a ship two-thirds the length of the Queen Mary, arrived in Long Beach Harbor last weekend bringing along two Ukrainian and Russian-built rockets that will launch commercial satellites into space beginning later this year. The unprecedented launches at sea require two ships, the command vessel and a super-sophisticated launch platform -- a self-propelled converted oil-drilling rig -- expected to arrive in Long Beach next month. It is about 440 feet long, 220 feet wide, 20 stories high and rides on giant pontoons that can be submerged for stability when rockets are launched.=20 Sea Launch is a joint venture of four companies, headed by Boeing Co. The operation will be based within a stone's throw of the proposed COSCO facility. The Sea Launch rocket consists of three stages, the first two being Ukrainian-built Zenits. The upper stage, which carries the satellite, is the Russian Block DM, which now flies as the fourth stage of the Proton rocket.=20 And guess who's benefiting from this project? Some familiar names, indeed. Sea Launch has sold 13 launches to Hughes Space and Communications and five to Loral Space Systems. Both, of course, have long-standing and deep relationships with China.=20 You might think the administration would be reluctant to risk another satellite scandal -- given the ongoing investigations into Loral's transfer of sensitive technology to Beijing through launches in China. But business is business.=20 And the Sea Launch business is big business. The first launch is set for October. A site near the equator has been chosen as a launching area for satellites that will assume geostationary orbit 22,300 miles above the equator. Sea Launch will make it possible for many more commercial satellites to be launched at competitive prices -- ranging from $70 million to $100 million.=20 China does not want to be left out in the cold while such monumental technological achievements are being accomplished. Long Beach will offer Beijing a key listening post -- just in case its strategic intelligence and military partners, the Russians, don't keep the Chinese fully informed.=20 There's a lot of money at stake -- and a lot of power, too. That's why the entire military-industrial complex, paid foreign lobbyists such as Gen. Alexander Haig, and the World Bank are lining up behind the COSCO and Sea Launch projects.=20 But don't worry. Companies like Loral, Boeing and Hughes are sure to keep America's vital national security interests in mind at all times. And China doesn't mean us any harm. President Clinton has told us so.=20 Keep your eye on Long Beach. It's a staging ground for the New World Order. When Bill Clinton says he and China share a vision for one big happy planet, this is what he is talking about.=20 =20 A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at http://www.ktkz.com/=20 =20 =A9 1998 Western Journalism Center=20 This page was last built 7/14/98; 6:15:45 AM Site scripted with UserLand Frontier=20 Direct corrections and technical inquiries to matlanta@mindspring.com=20 Tue, Jul 14, 1998=20 Brother, Can You Spare $18 Billion? The IMF Looks for More Money=20 7.16 a.m. ET (1116 GMT) July 10, 1998=20 By Jeremy Quittner =20 NEW YORK =97 The International Monetary Fund, which has assisted in 60 bailouts and committed $59 billion to beleaguered economies around the globe since 1996, said its reserve for future bailouts is imperiled.=20 The fund has requested $18 billion in additional money from the U.S. Congress, and the request has sparked fierce debates on both sides of the political fence about the necessity of granting more money.=20 The Washington-based fund said it currently has about $43 billion in reserves, and only $10 billion to $15 billion is actually available for future bailouts. It is seeking a 4= 5 percent increase in funding from all of its member countries.=20 Last year alone, the IMF loaned about $36 billion to Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea as Southeast Asian economies reeled from devalued currencies and bank collapses.=20 The IMF request for more money comes at a time when Russia is seeking about $15 billion from the fund.=20 The IMF operates on a quota system, and it is often compared to a credit union, where the money a country puts in remains that country's property. Member countries may not withdraw more than 25 percent of what they have put in without a vote from the general membership.=20 The United States is the largest contributing member to the IMF, with about 18 percent of the approximately $200 billion placed in the common fund.=20 Lawmakers and economists are divided about how much money the fund needs to survive. Conservatives maintain a laissez-faire attitude and say the IMF has more than enough money to finance future bailouts. Liberals have sounded an alarm and said the fund is critically imperiled if it does not receive more money.=20 Since January, Republican conservatives have stalled a bi= ll to increase funding to the agency. The bill was introduce= d by Congressman James A. Leach, Republican chairman of the House Banking Committee.=20 New York's John LaFalce, the lead Democrat on the committee, said increasing funding to the IMF is one of the most important issues facing Congress.=20 "I think it is imperative that we increase funding. It is the only international financial mechanism that exists," LaFalce said. "You wouldn=92t throw away all of your weaponry within the United Nations arsenal, and you wouldn=92t throw away your financial resources, and if ou= r resources are depleted within the IMF, we need to replenish those. The risk of inaction far, far transcends the risks of action."=20 The IMF and the World Bank, a separate entity, were both founded after World War II under the Bretton Woods Agreement to help speed the transition from wartime economies to economies of peace. Today, the World Bank focuses on financing internal projects, while the IMF focuses on stabilizing currencies and easing the debts of developing nations. Both entities were founded in part to provide financial incentives for countries to handle economic crises using peaceful means.=20 LaFalce said conservatives are not accurate in their assessment that the fund has enough money.=20 "Anyone who has analyzed the situation has said, 'We need additional resources', that we are right at the bord= er line right now," LaFalce said.=20 But the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., said reform of economic infrastructures in Southeast Asia is more important than larger loans.=20 "Everyone involved with our foreign policy and IMF issues has testified in opposition to additional funding to the IMF," said William W. Beach, senior fellow in economics at the foundation. "We believe the presence of the IMF in Asia has encouraged the kind of risk-taking that the most problematic of countries now find themselves paying for." "The fact that Indonesia and South Korea are in such bad financial condition today is in part due to the fact that they knew there was a system in place to save their currency and manage their crisis," he added.=20 Beach said the IMF has large reserves and can generate cash for future bailouts.=20 Brett Schaefer, an analyst for the foundation, agreed. He said that while the IMF is loaning out money, it is also taking money in as repayment for past loans. By the close of 2000, he said, the IMF expects to take in $28 billion.= In addition to the IMF=92s $43 billion reserve, Schaefer sai= d the IMF has access to another $23 billion in emergency credit under a clause called the General Arrangements to Borrow.=20 The National Association of Manufacturers said one of the chief purposes of the IMF is to push for structural refor= ms of economies of ailing countries.=20 Howard Lewis, vice president of economic policy for the association, said many countries like South Korea have seen more reforms to their financial infrastructures in t= he last six months than "we have seen in the last 20 years of negotiations," and they are making these changes "in part because the IMF has prodded them and encouraged them in that direction."=20 "What the Heritage point of view is missing is the coordination or the synergism that can take place by having a group like the IMF working on these problems," Lewis added.=20 Lewis said now is not the time to take the IMF to task.= =20 "You don=92t reform the fire department when they are putting out a major fire," Lewis said. "The IMF reserves are getting down to the bottom, and so its ability to handle further crises in Asia and anywhere else in the world is diminished."=20 Lewis said critical markets in Asia are drying up for the United States as it debates giving the IMF more money.=20 "The real impact has been that U.S. exports to Asia have gone off a cliff," Lewis said. "They can=92t get the cred= it they need to produce the products, and there is a real liquidity crisis where good banks aren=92t loaning to goo= d companies, because everyone is scared to death about what might happen."=20 Observers of all stripes agreed that the operations and lending activities of the IMF need to be more transparent= =2E They said it is an opaque organization and has to be more open about its loan programs.=20 "If you are looking for a loan from your banker, your banker can rightfully ask for your financial statements, and that is what they have asked Congress to do, to give them additional funds," Beach said. "I believe that will = be a condition that Congress will lay upon them" before it delivers the funds.=20 =A9 1998, News America Digital Publishing, Inc. d/b= /a Fox Market Wire. All rights reserved. Fox Market Wire is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox Film Corp.=20 =20 Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: GUN CONTROL POLICY FAILURE (fwd) Date: 14 Jul 1998 09:30:58 PST On Jul 13, R.J.K Sr. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Gun Control Policy Failure Charley Reese, a columnist for King Features Syndicate Inc., makes the points that burst anti-gunner's bubble. A little common sense goes a long way in countering emotionally charged, but illogical arguments. He says, "The gun ploy is a tactic that politicians who are not doing the job they were elected to do often use to distract voters. It seems that very few politicians actually want to do what they were elected to do, but they love to spout off about things that government can't really cure. "That's why they use the gun ploy, professing to be outraged and concerned about our alleged apathy about saving lives. The gun ploy script goes as follows: "First, exaggerate the problem. Accidental firearm deaths are dead last, even counting adults, as a cause of accidental deaths in the United States. The big killers of children are automobile accidents and drowning. "in 1993, 90,525 Americans died from accidents; 1,521 died in firearms accidents, and that includes both adults (by far the majority) and children. By contrast, 3,807people drowned, 13,141 died in falls, 8,537 died from poisoning and 41,893 died in motor vehicle accidents" Reese could have pointed out that all of the hand-wringing about protecting children from firearms accidents might have been better directed against deadly backyard swimming pools. The real statistics illustrate the genuine hypocrisy of the anti-firearm crowd. But Reese continues, "Second, trash the National Rifle Association, accusing it of not being interested in keeping guns out of the hands of children and criminals. This, of course, is a big fat fib. The NRA is the premier teacher of gun safety in the United States and has been teaching gun safety and prompting stiff penalties for criminal use of firearms long before baby boomer liberals were even born." The column didn't specify the NRA's highly successful Eddie Eagle program, which has educated thousands of kids about gun safety, or the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's attack on the program, which it compared to Joe Camel. And the NRA is not alone in its demand that criminals misusing firearms be severely punished. Anti-gunners shamelessly mangle statistics. as Reese illustrates. "A common trick is to claim 19-year-olds as 'children' and lump together three separate, unrelated categories: accidents, homicides and suicides. Then propose something really stupid like mandatory trigger locks. "Now that's stupid for two reasons. First, it is unenforceable unless you plan to declare martial law and conduct a house-to-house search on a daily basis. Second, someone stupid or careless enough to leave a loaded gun within reach of children would be stupid or careless enough to remove the trigger lock." What Reese says is absolutely correct. Even the most draconian society can't force people to be smart or careful. Then Reese reminds us of the basic fallacy of "gun control." "Finally," Reese states, "by blaming an inanimate object for the pathological behavior of human beings, the liberals reveal themselves as irrational and superstitious. Yes, just put on your witch doctor suit, shake your rattles and murmur at this inanimate object-the gun--and it will suddenly, by magic, give everyone a high IQ, high morals, a sense of responsibility and a healthy mind. "Guns no more cause crimes or suicides than bricks cause buildings. A constant can never be the cause of a variable. In America. the constant is private ownership and ready access to firearms. The variable is the crime rate. As a matter of fact, firearms are less available and less accessible today than at any time in American history. "But what liberals are really trying to do with the gun ploy is avoid facing the truth. The violent and brutish society they complain about is precisely the society they created. Everything liberals wanted, they got. "They wanted sexual promiscuity; dope; disregard for the law; no censorship of pornography: no laws against sodomy or public profanity; abortion on demand; easy divorces; acceptance of homosexuality; civilian review boards to second-guess police; Miranda warnings and public defenders; a welfare system that pays women to have illegitimate children; a tax system that penalizes marriage, work, savings and investments and subsidizes nonwork and immorality. And they got every darn bit of it. "And now, liberals profess to be surprised, even shocked, at the brutish, immoral, violent and sordid society they have created. Gee, Ms. and Mr. Liberal, you guys should have been studying Pome rather than demonstrating against wars or cops. It's called reaping what you sow. "We don't have a gun problem or a drug problem. We have a people problem and culture problem. Both are irrational and immoral." The New Gun Week July 1998 [------------------------- 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: Fwd: IMPORTANT: Ruling against Paid Informants Date: 14 Jul 1998 17:48:22 -0400 >X-Sender: league@mindspring.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) >Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:59:49 -0700 >To: citizen@mindspring.com >From: "J.J. Johnson" >Subject: IMPORTANT: Ruling against Paid Informants > >The 10th Federal Circuit has made a decision that, if left standing, could >free at least half of the federal inmate population. > >It's a ruling that every constitutionalist should find interesting. - J.J. & >Nancy. >_____________________________________________________________________ >Circuit Court Tells Prosecutors: Tempting Witnesses Akin to Bribery > > >Washington, DC, July 7, 1998 -- In the wake of last week's momentous federal >appeals court decision turning aside the common practice by which the U.S. >Department of Justice buys testimony against accused citizens, the National >Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is urging Congress and the Justice >Department to change that practice across the board. NACDL is also alerting >judges and defense attorneys around the nation that the Justice Department's >practice of promising leniency to jailhouse informants in exchange for their >testimony must now be deemed precisely what the 10th Circuit Court of >Appeals declared it is: ***a violation of the federal bribery statute***. > >Find the whole story here: > >http://www.criminaljustice.org/MEDIA/pr000125.htm > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Letter to RNC (fwd) Date: 15 Jul 1998 08:35:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net dana_diane@earthlink.net, wb5nzv@juno.com, Damien69@thepentagon.com, 72712.2036@compuserve.com, wikedolu@juno.com, kpp69@aol.com, marclev@mail.utexas.edu, M_Whitlock@hotmail.com, mjansha@nnci1.attmail.com, szantoid@swbell.net, aargw@juno.com, cburress@worldnet.att.net, s.l.ryan@worldnet.att.net, Terry Basom , texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by stevens@iglobal.net Here's my letter to the RNC following the Nicholson b.s.: RE: the following: > NICHOLSON CALLS ON CLINTON NOT TO BACK AWAY FROM FAST TRACK > "The President has to persuade members of his own party to go along with > him" > > WASHINGTON (July 8) - Republican National Committee Chairman Jim > Nicholson today called on President Clinton not to back away from his > commitment to fast track trade negotiating authority. > > "By now, Clinton should have learned what Republicans have long known: > that America's prosperity rests on the twin pillars of cutting taxes and > encouraging free trade." Nicholson said. > > "The president should not give up this fight, a fight to which he once > was committed. A majority of Republicans will vote to give the President > the authority to negotiate free trade agreements that are in the interest > of American workers and consumers. > > "All Clinton needs to do is invest some of his political capital into > persuading members of his own party to do the same. > > "Mr. President," Nicholson added, "yesterday you said Republicans could > choose "partisanship or progress." Now it's up to you. We can have > progress on freer trade. But you'll have to take some time away from > fundraising and other interests to do the work that needs to be done > among members of your own party." > > House Speaker Newt Gingrich has pledged to bring the fast track authority > to the floor of the House for a vote this year. > You socialist bastards! Cannot you understand that there is a damn good reason for NOT having "fast track" authorization? The only difference in the Republicans and the Democrats is that Repubs just want to go to Hell a little slower. " socialist - (n.) One who favors government control of production, property and the general population." "bastard - (n.) An illegitimate child." You obviously want to enslave us peons, as evidenced by the legislative record of the "Republican revolution", and your actions certainly are not legitimate. If the Republican Party cannot take a step back and examine their policies regarding the assault on Constitutional liberties, then it as a party will lose the support of its traditional constituency and will be no better than a middle-of-the-road Democratic faction. Your actions speak so much louder than your words: > Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America > today. As you read, consider what all these have in common. > > 1. A national database of employed people. > > 2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is > (among other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients. > > 3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign > citizenship. > > 4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an > unconstitutional ex postfacto law and the first law ever to remove > people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor. > > 5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks > may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents could become federal > criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting into vehicles. > > 6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, > an agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude. > > 7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups > "Terrorists" - without stating any reason and without the possibility > of appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and > membership > lists must be turned over to the government. > > 8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain > classes of people. > > 9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses > carrying Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as > magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, > 2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration > or the Passport Office or any other Federal agency or any State or local > government agency may accept for any evidentiary purpose a State > driver's license or identification document in a form other than [one > issued with a verified Social Security number and 'security features']." > > 10. And my personal favorite - a national database, now being > constructed, that will contain every exchange and observation that takes > place in your doctor's office. This includes records of your > prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also > includes - by law - any statements you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid > may be on drugs...... Doc, I've been so stressed out lately I feel about > ready to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes about your > mental or physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with > your knowledge or not. For the time being, there will be zero (count > 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on this data. But don't worry, your > government will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards" in a > few years. > > All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What > else do they have in common? > > Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, > "They're all unconstitutional." True. > > My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted, > "They all SUUUCK!" Also true. > > But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product > of the 104th Congress. Every one of the horrors above was imposed upon > you by the Congress of the Republican-Revolution -- the Congress that > pledged to "get government off your back." > And don't make excuses! The Republicans control the Congress and could have stopped ALL of that legislation. Period. End of discussion. PTUI! No wonder the voter turnout projections for this November is one of the lowest ever. What a choice we are given: the Devil or the deep blue sea. Fred Stevens Sanger, Texas -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Excellent Commentary (fwd) Date: 15 Jul 1998 12:55:45 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Ralph Mertesdorf" Please read this excellent column by Elizabeth Farah. She covers a lot of ground and does it very well. -- Ralph Mertesdorf http://www.worldnetdaily.com/efarah/980714.efarah.open.letter.html -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: AWNA Date: 15 Jul 1998 13:12:28 -0500 (CDT) --- Begin Forwarded Message --- Sender: sam115@juno.com Message-ID: <19980714.003748.3398.4.sam115@juno.com> AWNA Act signed by President WASHINGTON, DC--On Tuesday, Congress approved the Americans With No Abilities Act, sweeping new legislation that provides benefits and protection for more than 135 million talentless Americans. The act, signed into law by President Clinton shortly after its passage, is being hailed as a major victory for the millions upon millions of U.S. citizens who lack any real skills or uses. "Roughly 50 percent of Americans--through no fault of their own--do not possess the talent necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Clinton, a longtime AWNA supporter. "Their lives are futile hamster-wheel existences of unrewarding, dead-end busywork: xeroxing documents written by others, fulfilling mail-in rebates for Black & Decker toaster ovens, and processing bureaucratic forms that nobody will ever see. Sadly, for these millions of nonabled Americans, the American dream of working hard and moving up through the ranks is simply not a reality." Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million important-sounding "middle man" positions will be created in the white-collar sector for nonabled persons, providing them with an illusory sense of purpose and ability. Mandatory, non-performance-based raises and promotions will also be offered to create a sense of upward mobility for even the most unremarkable, utterly replaceable employees. The legislation also provides corporations with incentives to hire nonabled workers, including tax breaks for those who hire one non-germane worker for every two talented hirees. Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act also contains tough new measures to prevent discrimination against the nonabled by banning prospective employers from asking such job-interview questions as, "What can you bring to this organization?" and "Do you have any special skills that would make you an asset to this company?" "As a nonabled person, I frequently find myself unable to keep up with co-workers who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as an unessential filing clerk at a Minneapolis tile wholesaler last month because of her lack of notable skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of the Americans With No Abilities Act, Gertz and millions of other untalented, inessential citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Clinton: "It is our duty, both as lawmakers and as human beings,to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her lack of value to society, some sort of space to take up in this great nation." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: July Privacy and Security 2001 (fwd) Date: 15 Jul 1998 14:36:32 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Friend, You may be receiving this newsletter by email because someone recommended you and gave us your email address. If you have no interest in how an engineer looks at the broad picture of privacy and security in our country, just drop me a little note asking us to take you off the list. If you do have an interest, we think this issue will have much you'll like. Privacy and Security 2001SM Everyman's guide to coping in the modern, high-tech world Volume XIV, Number 7 Yogo 14.07 July 1998 Reminder: Your ultimate loss of privacy and security occurs when they kill you. CALENDAR The Ross Engineering Hands-on TSCM Training Course September 14 - 18, 1998 Minneapolis, MN October 19 - 23, 1998 Pittsburgh, PA November 9 - 13, 1998 Minneapolis, MN January 18 - 22, 1999 Pittsburgh, PA Note 1. Until our new facility is completed near Washington, DC, Jim Ross will be assisting our licensees as they present the course listed above. Note 2. For more information you can reach Jim Ross on 800-US-DEBUG; Bob Kresson on 412-921-2354; Kevin Reierson on 612-905-0757. Note 3. N.B. On the dates above we're offering either week one or week two of our two-week training course because it is a two-week course given one week at a time. The Ross Engineering Pittsburgh Seminar: Covert Video in Investigations October 5 - 6, 1998 Pittsburgh, PA Note. Information: Bob Kresson at 412-291-2354 Surveillance Expo '98 November 16 - 18, 1998 Hynes Center, Boston, MA This, the tenth presentation of Surveillance Expo, will take place in conjunction with Northeastern University's second Criminal Justice Conference and Exposition in Boston. In its first year this show brought in over 3,500 participants, and we're looking for 5,000 this year! Information: Lynne or Jim Ross at 800-US-DEBUG. IN THIS ISSUE Page 1 printed edition Calendar Pages 1&2 printed edition Linda Tripp's Tape Recordings Page 2 printed edition Careful Choice of Words Page 3 printed edition States' Rights & Individual Freedoms Page 4 printed edition News from the 'Net LINDA TRIPP'S TAPE RECORDINGS, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL? Summation. Linda Tripp's recordings of those calls from Monica Lewinsky were legally made. Read on. The Newspeople's Findings. Every news report I have read said that taping telephone calls in Maryland is legal only if all parties consent, and, therefore, Linda Tripp broke the law when she recorded her telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Hmm. The comments by TV and radio news reporters have all said Linda broke the law when she recorded her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Hmm. On Sunday afternoon (7-12-98) on C Span Radio 90 I listened to NBC's Meet the Press. (That's what they called it; honest.) (It must have been a rebroadcast because talkers referred to "this morning"). On that show the man questioning one of the ladies' lawyers referred to "Linda's illegal tape recordings". Hmm. I wonder who does legal analyses for all those people. Wouldn't you think that, with the odor of the bogus sarin story still with us, they would be careful of the information they put out as "news"??? The Position of the State of Maryland. Denying any political pressure or motive, and saying nothing about why the announcement was timed to coincide with Linda Tripp's appearance before the grand jury, James I. Cabezas (chief investigator for the State Prosecutor) announced that Maryland would "...collect evidence to present to the (state) grand jury..." State Prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli is quoted as saying he'll proceed with the investigation, and he appears to have no concern over what trouble his delayed (strategically scheduled?) actions might cause our country. So let's look at the laws intelligently, and analyze the situation. Jim Ross's Analysis. Despite the commentary in the press to the contrary, it was perfectly legal for Linda Tripp to record her telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky without Monica Lewinsky's knowledge or consent. Yes, Linda Tripp was recording calls while in her Maryland home; and, yes, Maryland law requires all-party consent. However, the calls were not made within the state of Maryland. They were interstate calls made between DC and Maryland, and therefore the federal law applies, not state law. And federal law allows taping when one party consents. I SAY AGAIN: INTERSTATE CALLS ARE COVERED BY FEDERAL LAW AND FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS RECORDING WITH ONE PARTY CONSENT. This is not the recitation of some abstract theory by some unconnected academician. I am an electrical engineer with a lifetime of working in communication, and I have been called in state and federal courts as an expert witness in civil and criminal cases involving the laws in question. Further, I have regularly acted upon my convictions. While I lived and worked in Maryland, I recorded many interstate calls without the knowledge or consent of the other party. Conditioning. I recognize that the conclusion stated above flies in the face of everything you have been presented in the newspapers and TV "news" reports. In an effort to condition you to accept something other than what they have fed you, I ask that you recognize that: 1. most (not all, but most) people who call themselves journalists have had a very liberal education, have no other significant work experience, have never met a payroll, have had no time in the uniform of the armed services of their country, etc.; and they are, therefore, very liberal in their thinking and makeup, and 2. these people who have been bringing you "news" are not qualified by education, training or experience to make judgments on such matters as the interpretation of the law, and they don't demand that their employers have such experts available to help them, and 3. the major news media demonstrate, continuously, that they have no tolerance for conservative ideas, and some even have such an abiding hate of our military people that they go to the extreme opposite of professionalism by creating stories such as the recent false report that our troops used sarin gas to deliberately kill innocent women and children during the Viet Nam war. Clarification. Here's a parallel situation to help understand the difference between federal and state law applicability. Years ago, when the telephone companies began to offer calling number ID (often called "caller ID") service, the state of Pennsylvania passed a law forbidding the delivery of the calling number to the called party. However, what the lawmakers overlooked was the fact that businesses that offer toll free numbers ("800" numbers) regularly receive the calling number automatically. So Pennsylvania had the situation that its law was violated daily and continuously in a wholesale manner, and to my knowledge there never was any legal action taken against any "offender" within the state. Obviously, there couldn't have been any action taken against any offender outside of the state because the state's authority ends at the state boundary, and I think they just decided to ignore the law they could not enforce. Conclusion. In the Pennsylvania situation the state could take no action against companies shipping calling numbers into the state because it has no authority over interstate communications. In the Linda Tripp situation Maryland can do nothing legally because it has no authority over interstate communications. Post Script. Also, Tripp's use of a "body wire" (tape recorder hidden on her person) is perfectly legal where single-party consent is the rule such as in the District of Columbia and Virginia. If she was a party to a multi-party conversation in the district or in Virginia, she broke no laws in recording those conversations without the consent of the other parties. TWO EXAMPLES OF VERY CAREFUL CHOICE OF WORDS Example #1. In the third paragraph under "Jim Ross's Analysis" I used the word "called" rather than "testified" in describing my experience as an expert witness. I had to do that because, although I have testified in federal and state cases, in three state criminal cases I never had to testify because the cases were dismissed as soon as the state's attorney learned that an expert would kill his case. (He later advised the top brass in Maryland to bring no more harassing calls cases.) Example #2. In "Post Script" I said that Maryland can do nothing "legally". I used that word because I firmly believe that Maryland will discover that it cannot do anything to control or manage interstate telephone calls. That does not mean that I think Linda Tripp will not be indicted. If there is sufficient political pressure applied, the state might waste taxpayers money with an indictment in an effort to harass her, or to interfere with Ken Starr's efforts. GOODBY TO STATES' RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS? Foreword. I have frequently said that I would have more respect for a man who shoved a gun into my gut and demanded my money than I do for tricky deals cooked up by politicians who are, to use a current ploy, "trying to save the children". I may be completely wrong in my assessment (and I hope I am - for all of our sakes), but what follows describes sneaky actions that may spell the end to states' rights and individual freedoms. (Ed. Note. This is a message I sent out to those on my email list. If you received that, I apologize for the duplication, but see the addendum for the specific, dangerous content of EO 13083.) "Fellow Free American, "I am concerned that we are being bamboozled into losing states' rights and personal freedoms, not by constitutional amendment, but by trickery. Please consider these recent events. "Just last week the Supreme Court ruling that killed the line item veto included these words: "If this act were valid, it would authorize the president to create a law whose text was never voted on by either House or presented to the president for signature." Thereby, appropriately, the Supreme Court recognized the division of powers created by our Constitution; and killed this Republican-created threat to our republic. "Oops! While that landmark decision was being made, I began to smell something fishy elsewhere, and I fear it is a well-planned and organized White House attack on states' rights and personal freedoms. Consider these facts. "Our president signed Executive Order 13083 on May 14, 1998 while in the UK. That wordy document might put you to sleep while you try to read it. If you do try to read it, chances are you'll miss two key - I think - elements. First, well buried is a section that explains how the federal government will just have to take control if certain state activities seem to be out of hand in the sole judgment of some federal government agency. (See details in addendum that follows.) "The other key part - I think - is the statement that this order will become effective in 90 days. I say that is a key part because I believe it was put into the order to lull everyone to sleep, thinking we have plenty of time to worry about the details because it won't become effective until August. "Some folks on the internet have stated that, by law, the Executive Orders of the president become effective in 30 days, despite the wording in the EO. That's cute, isn't it? Do you suppose someone was trying to lull us to sleep while the EO became effective on June 14? "That's an interesting idea, isn't it? It's especially interesting when you look at the "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" that the Department of Transportation published, guess what, on June 17, 1998. Three days after the EO, apparently, became effective DOT takes advantage of it. Efficient, no? "In short, unless killed before October 14, 1998, the rules proposed by that DOT (Dept of Transportation, of all things!) document will become effective October 1, 2000. They'll make the use of a picture ID card with your social security number on it mandatory for many ordinary activities and for ALL interactions with the federal government agencies. ALL states MUST prepare ID documents that meet the specific criteria set down by DOT. You won't even be allowed to get a job without presenting your federally-approved picture ID card! "Well planned trickery? Exceptionally well planned, in my opinion. Here's the capper. Have you noticed what's in the news the past few days? Sure, it's the NINE-DAY trip of the first family to China. Not only does that activity hog the news; but, if any politicians should believe there is something that needs to be fixed in the national ID card scheme, our president is out of the fray, attending to more important business. "Comments will be appreciated. Am I on the mark, or am I just dreaming that there's a plan to be sure that we must all carry national ID to walk down the street? (I can still remember the chill I felt [when I was a member of the US Constabulary after the war in Germany] every time I saw a policeman step in front of a person on the street and say "KenKarte bitte!".) I don't think I will be too much bothered by the changes, but we think our kids and grand kids should be able to live in a FREE country, a country like the one we grew up in." Addendum. The following is the exact wording of EO 13083 that causes concern among patriots. It is buried deep in text that is innocuous and boring, and we're all lucky that some smart patriots pointed it out to some of us on the 'net. I especially call your attention to (3) on which, apparently, the DOT hung its hat in its proposed rule making. "Section 3, (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries. (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs. (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards. (4) When decentralization increases the cost of government, imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer. (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties. (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States. (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities. (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations. (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments. This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order." NEWS FROM THE 'NET Foreword. One of the sources for information that follows is our friend Chris Ruddy, and he cautions all to be wary of unsubstantiated "news" received over the internet. We agree wholeheartedly; in fact, we caution everyone to be wary of the news in your daily newspaper and on network news and on talk shows, etc. Technology Transfers to China and Russia. In a recent posting Chris Ruddy advised interested parties to visit for information "backed up by a wealth of government records". He mentions a recent article about how "an IBM supercomputer" allowed the Russians to build its most advanced missile, the SS-27. Everyman's Access to Spy Satellite Pictures. Mark Cavallaro passed along information about how all of us will be able to "browse and click satellite pictures" of those areas of the earth's surface that may be of interest to us. From the information provided it appears that some sources provide pictures at no charge, and others charge $13.60 to $38.00 depending on specifications. Mark referred us to: and . Happy hunting! Pager Question. A subscriber has asked if we can steer him to an off-the-shelf pager with a numeric decoder and logic to close a relay upon receipt of a specific numeric message. Can YOU help him? Analog Tapes as Evidence. In our June newsletter we stated that analog tapes of conversations could be blocked from being heard in court unless the offeror could provide an absolute chain of custody. I made that point because there are digital techniques that can alter an analog tape, and there are no technical means to differentiate a created "original" from a real original. Robert Hanssen corrected me after we exchanged a few emails. He pointed out that, in a civil case, the tapes would be presented as evidence, and then could be challenged by the other side. There's no doubt he knows more about the law than I, so I have to eat my words because the question asked of me related to a civil suit, not a criminal trial. However, I have to contradict a part of his information. Specifically, he said that to create a forge "original" one would need an extensive lab and would probably lose out to an FBI examination checking things like head alignment, etc. Nope. Not so. The equipment to alter an analog tape is commercially available, and the phony original will have characteristics of the original analog tape because, when an analog tape is changed by the digital process, it does not lose any of the original tape's characteristics. It's merely a process of moving words around or making words disappear. (Of course, in the old days, I'm told, sometimes the tapes were so bad that the court had to depend on the transcript and sometimes words - such as "not" - did not show up on the transcript.) Anyway, Robert, thank you for setting me straight. It's always encouraging to know that professionals read my offerings and take the trouble to correct me. ********************************************************** Privacy and Security 2001, James A. Ross, Editor comes to you via email at no charge. If you do not wish to receive it, please let us know at jross@rosseng.com. If you know of someone else who you think would be interested, please send along his email address. If you would be interested in receiving the smail version, just send us $35 for North American addresses, $55 elsewhere to: Ross Group, LLC, 7008 Tech Cir, Manassas, VA 20109 USA ********************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: NewHoo (fwd) Date: 15 Jul 1998 17:36:38 PST On Jul 15, Richard Hartman wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I just finished checking out http://www.newhoo.com. I have no idea whether this will catch on or not, but their willingness to accept volunteer editors for any category is an opportunity. I agree those of us who have the time should volunteer. For example, the Sports section has roughly three dozen categories... but only one related to firearms, "Hunting". I don't know about you, but I participate in quite a few firearm hobbies: Plinking, pin shooting, and other stationary target sports with both handguns and long guns; sporting clays, skeet, trap, and other shotgun sports; etc. There are numerous other categories that I haven't even gotten into yet, including DCM, reloading, extreme accuracy, practical pistol, cowboy action... the list is long. Seems to me that we ought to be able to create 8-12 firearm related categories in the Sports section alone, all of which will be entirely legitimate sports in their own rights. Then there's the Politics area. Self-defense, hunting, CCW, interstate CCW... get the idea? Our chosen hobby/profession is extremely broad spectrumed, yet the only thing anyone has bothered to include is "Hunting". How different would be the impression given to visitors if 20-30% of the Sports and Politics topics were related to firearms. Not "invented" topics, but serious, honest categories and issues facing the RKBA community. Perhaps we'd increase our profile just a little, and not be dismissed as oddballs and weirdos who dream of nothing but slaughtering children on playgrounds. Perhaps visitors would become more aware that there are numerous good, entertaining, healthy uses for firearms. And the hyperlinks would allow them to learn more if their interest was piqued. A few volunteers are needed. All it costs is time. Isn't your hobby/profession, and your rights, worth at least that? RLH [------------------------- 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: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Terms of Surrender Date: 15 Jul 1998 23:50:18 -0700 This message was given to us by a programmer who recently quit a major Y2K compliance project for the government. He wishes to remain anonymous. - J.J. Terms of Surrender ATTENTION Federal Government (and others as well): Well, well... After months of us being called names from "chicken little" to "doomsday alarmists," William Jefferson Clinton has finally addressed the Y2K problem and the potential damage that could occur on or before New Year's Day, 2000. This means that you (the government) have finally admitted your weakness - your Achilles heel. With that in mind, we think now is the time for all of us to sit down and have a little chat. Computer experts have stated that virtually every programmer available is in use today, and you still need 500,000 to 750,000 programmers to repair the problems - just here in the US. Since many of these computers use old languages (FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, etc.), you are under the impression that the original programmers are long gone. It is this false impression you have that enables us to offer you the Terms of your Surrender to the American public. But remember, this olive branch we offer - this agreement, will be pulled off the table on December 31, 1998. It's your choice. First, a little background: You figured that since those old mainframes that were built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s they were programmed by people who have long since retired. At least that's what you said publicly. But the fact is, many of those same mainframes were upgraded since then. Remember the Reagan Revolution? Yes, all the young corporate raiders - the ones that re-tooled the military, and helped build all those modern skyscrapers. Didn't they also program (and re-program) many of those machines for an ever expanding government? Where are they? Admit it. Most of the folks who programmed those mainframes in the past have not retired, died, or disappeared. Just use the math. Most of those old mainframe programmers can't be more than 55 today. But where are they? Who are they? They are the people who served you breakfast in that greasy spoon on your way to work this morning. The guy who shined your shoes. That janitor you saw the other day. That old cab driver who took you to the airport. The middle aged woman behind the ticket counter. The guy pumping gas at that rural truck stop. The truck driver himself. Maybe that right-wing talk show host. Some are in jail for crimes without victims - crimes against you, the government. The people you called names for daring to speak out against government atrocities. The people that have been talking about this potential problem for almost 20 years. The people who get on the internet and write letters like this. By now, a light bulb has probably gone off in your head. "Have we been set up?", "Hoodwinked?" The answer is, no. You haven't. Yes, we remember those old languages. Some of us even have the source books. You see, you made us sit there and "vegetate" in front of that old key-punch machine or keyboard, and then took all the credit for the new innovations, while taxing us into involuntary servitude. So, we found better things to do with our lives. We dropped out. Of course, we realize now that the future of the world economy and government as we know it is in peril. You're probably wondering why haven't we told you this earlier and come to the rescue? ANSWER: We don't want to. If crashing the entire world economy is what it takes to bring down agencies like the IRS, FBI, FEMA, and the EPA then so be it. We know we can never really beat you by force. You think we don't know that helping you solve your computer problem would only place heavier yokes on us down the road? Didn't you consider that went you hired those "geeks" to fix your problems? Nope. You were so desperate to fix the problem, you never bother to ask the person, "Say, how do you feel about big government, anyway? How do your parents feel about it?" You figured throwing money (our money) at the problem would be the cure. The only guarantee you have that your Y2K bug is cured is "our word on it." Now, you're in a panic mode. You're probably thinking, "Gee, what if one (or more) of those Y2K computer repair people are really..." Don't say it. We know what you're thinking. And besides, it's too late. Don't even try and blame us for it. There's no conspiracy here. Nobody "formed an agreement" to screw up your systems. In fact many of us tried to tell you. But we were written off as alarmists. Smarty pants. Making excuses for not doing our jobs. You pushed us. All you wanted was results. Meet the deadline. Meet the deadline. Save memory space. Worry about the other problems later. By then there would be some other suckers to enslave. Sorry, but we're all slaved out. You're hoping (and looking) for a "silver bullet." Well, there is a silver bullet. In fact, we ARE the silver bullet. We know the systems. We know the codes. And with a little time, we can fix the problem. But in order to gain our assistance, you must first meet the following terms: SURRENDER NOW We want the 16th amendment, and all laws passed thereto, repealed. This means ALL of Title 26 of the US code. That will include all those stupid tax and gun laws. SURRENDER NOW We want a constitutional amendment passed removing the phrases, "regulate interstate commerce," and "promote the general welfare" removed from the constitution. You've perverted their true meaning for far too long. SURRENDER NOW Repeal the 17th amendment. We want our states to have the ability to recall treasonous Senators whenever we see fit. SURRENDER NOW All agencies will be tested for its justifiable existence under the 9th and 10 amendments. It not, all employees of said agency must be terminated from employment - without compensation. Don't worry, they'll find other jobs. They can grow the food you've told farmers not to grow. They can make the natural medicine that the FDA has regulated out of existence. They can manufacture the products you've farmed off to third world countries. There will be plenty of work available. It's called a "free market." SURRENDER NOW Give up the land holdings. NOW. No more harassing farmers for grazing rights. No more wetlands grabbing. Scrap all the "biodiversity" regions. No more kicking people off "public" land. If you need land for the military, fine. But that's about it. Anything else goes private. Period. SURRENDER NOW We want you out of our paychecks, out of our churches, out of our medicine cabinets, out of our homes, out of the U.N. and of course - OFF the internet! SURRENDER NOW Every potential juror in every court must be told they have the right to not only judge the facts, but the law itself - no matter what the judge says. They will NOT be held in contempt for making a decision. SURRENDER NOW All political prisoners (US citizens charged with crimes against government -- IRS, drug, gun, etc.) are to receive amnesty. That's about 75% of the federal inmate population. SURRENDER NOW All federal employees, agents, and officers who have committed violent crimes against U.S. citizens, who have committed High Treason, shall be tried according to the law - in state courts. SURRENDER NOW Or fix these problems yourself. We know this is a tall order, and you probably won't agree to any of it. In fact, you'll probably never admit that you even read this. But we know you are monitoring our communications. So here's some little secrets that will help motivate your decision. Read the news stories about programmers who have quit and are moving to the hills? And all those naval officers who are quitting? And all of those pilots? And all of those doctors? They are among the thousands (probably millions) joining us in our rural retreats. We've got the bibles, the beans, the bandages, the bullets -- and the brains. And you can't have them. I'm sure your federal snitches have given you numerous reports of people who simply won't file their tax returns next year. They're probably doing the same thing. Why bother? You'll have no way of counting it, anyway. Good luck trying to spend billions to fix the Y2K problem with only millions (or thousands) to pay for it. Nobody told us to do it. We've made up our own minds. We would rather starve than take your national ID cards. We would rather die than take a mark on our forehead or hands. The tobacco companies won't bail you out. The firearms manufacturers won't bail you out. The Chinese won't bail you out. And don't be surprised to see people closing out all those IRAs, 401k's and mutual fund accounts by the middle of next year. We'll need the cash for those last few bits of survival gear. Next year, you will be on your own. Don't bother having CNN and the AP lie to us and say that you've fixed the problem. We won't believe it. We know the programmers. We are the programmers. We are the silver bullet. And we have absolutely no desire to repair the problem no matter how many federal reserve notes you print out. We will watch from afar - from a safe distance. We will survive. We will say a prayer for you, and the poor slobs who supported you, as they lose what little grip they have on civilized life. You will reap what you have sewn. Economics chaos, food shortages, disease, death and destruction will take over the cities. You will be powerless to stop it. And we will not fire a shot to make it happen. Some cities will indeed end in flames - flames that will light a path to our posterity's freedom. Ugly scenario, isn't it? Surrender now. None of us will be entertained by watching you wither up and die. What a sobering way to ring in the next millennium. But it won't be our problem. It's is not our duty to help you. We'll have the unfortunate duty of properly disposing of your rotting corpses. Agree to our terms, and some of us - a few of us, may agree to help you in return. So, think about it. Also think about what happened recently in Russia, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan, North Korea, and other countries now undergoing economic and societal meltdown. Go ask them how well their computers worked to help save them. Remember who sold them to them (I'm sure they do). And take a look at history: No great nation has ever fallen from a force of arms, but from an unwillingless of its citizenry to support it. If you would like more insight on this phenomenon, read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. It was written in the 40's. It has sold more copies than anything but the Bible (including your little Red Book) and it's still available in major book stores everywhere. For those of you who can't read (i.e. recent public school graduates), you can find it on audiocassette. There will be no IMF around when it happens nor will there be any taxpayers left to foot the bill. Think about these terms, and make a decision. But remember, the clock is ticking (no pun intended). We'll be watching C-SPAN, awaiting your decision, John Q. Public - We are everywhere. - Monte Let the sea roar and its fulness, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord. For He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with equity. - Psalm 98 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) FLASH: Clinton Backs Down Date: 16 Jul 1998 08:36:57 -0700 >Exegesis > >A Compass For Moral Excellence >Published Worldwide From Washington > >The White House has just announced that Executive Order 13083 will be put >on hold for another 90 days to allow time for consultation. > >Exegesis readers have been bombarding Congress with telephone calls and >faxes this morning. Representatives of the "Big Seven" States have voiced >their fury with Mr. Clinton. I heard directly from staff of Gov. Pete >Wilson (CA) and John Engler (MI) that they had called The White House after >seeing this week's Exegesis. > >I wouldn't dream of suggesting that we were responsible for this important >victory. This is the result of like-minded people saying "Enough is >enough" and using every means possible to oppose tyranny. > >However, I think we're entitled to take a few minutes for a quick sigh of >relief, a toast of lemonade (or something stronger) and then on with the >work of opoosing this dreadful order and re-creating the America we love. > >Even The Washington Post is reporting the climbdown. >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1998-07/16/043r-071698-idx.html > >Praise the Lord! We have much more to do, but be encouraged: we're making >a difference! > >See you on August 8 for American Renewal Day! We may have something to >celebrate! Get your tickets now while we still have some left. There's a >form at http://www.sm.org/events > >With best wishes > >Steve Myers >Editor - Monte Let the sea roar and its fulness, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord. For He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with equity. - Psalm 98 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: second amendment (fwd) Date: 16 Jul 1998 13:24:21 PST On Jul 16, larry ball wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] An Open Letter To The Japanese Ambassador* by L. Neil Smith lneil@ezlink.com Kunihiko Saito Ambassador to the United States Japanese Embassy 2520 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 Sir: I'm writing to inform you that you and your government are in the process of mortally offending more than a quarter of the people of this nation, representing about half the households in America. I refer to the 70 million decent and honorable men, women, and children who choose to exercise their unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry weapons -- and to the dishonorable and despicable effort of your United Nations delegates to pressure member nations into suppressing that right. Americans have fought many international conflicts over the past couple of centuries. In each, they've been convinced -- with whatever degree of justification -- that they were fighting essentially to preserve the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, one article of which directly addresses the right to own and carry weapons. Most Americans are unaware of what you and your government are up to so far, but I want you to imagine what could happen once they learn how you're trying to deprive them of their rights. I want you to imagine even those Americans who don't presently choose to own personal weapons, angrier at you than at any time since World War II. As one of my correspondents recently put it, during the Cold War, Americans represented a sort of "thin khaki line" between your people and Soviet domination, defending rights and values you're now attempting to deprive us of. Perhaps, he offers, we shouldn't have gone to all that effort. Imagine what would have happened if we hadn't. Imagine what would happen now if we just pulled out, sending you a bill for the entire 50-year period. Imagine what could happen if Americans perceive this attempt to abrogate their rights as the moral equivalent to your attack on Pearl Harbor. Imagine thousands of angry letters appearing in newspapers and thousands of calls to radio stations, informing even more readers and listeners of your determination to destroy the Bill of Rights. Imagine a flood of letters and calls to your embassy and consulates. Imagine hordes of pickets marching back and forth in front of every Japanese diplomatic and corporate estabaishment in America. Another thing you need to imagine is the diplomatic repercussions. Most Americans are fed up with the very idea of diplomatic immunity. Imagine widespread demands to revoke yours, on the grounds that you're tampering with the internal politics of a nation in which you have heretofore been a honored guest? Imagine being open to injunctions, civil suits, demands for restitution, even criminal prosecution under a future administration more amenable to the concept of Bill of Rights enforcement than the present one happens to be? Imagine the success of efforts presently underway to prevent the United States from handing another penny to the United Nations, and to terminate American membership in that organization altogether? More to the point, in a country that's never been very comfortable about purchasing expensive foreign goods -- and where feelings run so high that Japanese cars used to be smashed and burned in Detroit parking lots -- imagine deferred purchases of Japanese products such as automobiles and trucks, including those manufactured here. Imagine: how many percentage points must Japanese auto sales drop before you decide that your attempt to disarm Americans is too expensive? Two percent? Five percent? Ten percent? Imagine how many billions of dollars that represents, how many trillions of yen. Now imagine a boycott aimed at a single product-type like cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs, spreading to others: stereos, TVs, cameras, and computers. How many more billion dollars? How many more trillion yen? There are many other countries you don't _have_ to imagine -- Germany, China, Taiwan, and Korea come to mind -- eager to fill the gap created by such a boycott. Even once it ended, you'd have lost customers permanently to your international competitors. Wouldn't you say Japan is in enough economic trouble already? Imagine how many Americans are angry over the billions our government is giving you now. Imagine how they'll feel when they learn what you're "giving" them in return. Why go looking for more trouble on the infantile whim of the politically feeble-minded among you? Your culture is infamous for demanding that others respect its customs and traditions, however backward and oppressive. In this century alone, your nation butchered unarmed thousands in Manchuria, laid waste to most of Asia and the Pacific, even let its soldiers eat their prisoners of war. The nation that raped Nanking, Manila, and Singapore, and enslaved then hysterectomized "comfort women" to make them more available to the Emperor's troops without the inconvenience of menstrual periods, has no right criticizing our ownership of guns. Between 1935 and 1945 Japan killed almost six million people, dwarfing American criminal violence, rivalling that of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and exceeding that of Pol Pot. Recently, you've been denying these crimes that millions were witness to, but that only makes Japan look more ridiculous and guilty than it already is. Even today, you discriminate viciously against the Ainu, the Burakumin, and non-Japanese living in Japan, especially Koreans and ethnically mixed individuals. Japan's culture is so intolerable to its own people that they kill themselves at a rate almost double that of the United States. Your police search people's homes whenever they wish; so many arrestees confess that your interrogation methods must surely be of interest to Amnesty International. Yet you have the nerve to try to take the moral high ground with us. Perhaps you should reflect carefully on whether the world should emulate your ways, including your gun laws, or ours. The fact is, your attempt to interfere with the more refined and libertarian traditions of our culture is, at the least, hypocritical. And since you can hardly be unaware that guns in private hands save between two and four million American lives every year, I can only conclude that you're willing to sacrifice those millions to further this evil, halfwitted, and thoroughly discredited scheme which we have learned to call by its right name, "victim disarmament". Americans are presently burdened, from the city to the national level, with the most corrupt and brutal government in our history -- a government that agrees with you that concepts like the Bill of Rights are as disposable as used toilet paper. But if you understand anything about us, understand that this only means we'll work harder to assure stringent enforcement of the Bill of Rights, not only in our country, but (with the precedent of interference provided by your government) to encourage the birth of a radical individualist movement in Japan. If you think that Levis and MacDonald's have captured the attention of your youth, wait until they taste the idea of freedom. Imagine: informed by Americans like me that they, too, are the exclusive owners of their own lives and all the products of their lives, your people demanding that you recognize their unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own and carry weapons. Don't you imagine that it's time you gave up your attempt in the United Nations to disarm everyone on the planet? -- *Excerpted from The Libertarian Enterprise, June 19, 1998: http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe38-19980619.html L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _The Probability Broach_, _Pallas_, _Henry Martyn_, and other novels, as well as publisher of _The Libertarian Enterprise_, available free by e-mail subscription or at http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html. More of Neil's essays can be found on the "Webley Page", at http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html. Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. [------------------------- 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: Illinois Incident (fwd) Date: 16 Jul 1998 21:11:52 PST On Jul 16, Mike Riddle wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ET phoned in with: >If and when you get the chance, you might try a bit of historical >research on the subject of firearms law of your State. >What I'd really care to know is does your State Constitution have a >firearms specific Right built in >From [suppressed] on another (closed) list: I attach my tentative list of state constitutional provisions, together with any earlier versions that I could find. I've tried to make it complete. The list has yet to be cite-checked, and that some of the dates might be off -- I got a lot of the pre-1908 provisions from Thorpe, and I've noticed that at times the date given in Thorpe is a year off from the official effective date. If you find any errors, in the text, the citation, or in the dates, *please* let me know. Many thanks to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a law student working here at the Law Library, for his research help. I intend to publish the list as an appendix to my state constitutional right to keep and bear arms article, once that's written . . . . (I hope to have it done and ready to send out to the law reviews by September, and perhaps even a bit earlier.) Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of art. I, sec. 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901). Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Alaska Const. art. I, sec. 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994). Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Ariz. Const. art. II, sec. 26 (enacted 1912). Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Ark. Const. art. II, sec. 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, sec. 5). 1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, sec. 21. California: No provision. Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Colo. Const. art. II, sec. 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, sec. 13). Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Conn. Const. art. I, sec. 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, sec. 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817. See Wesley W. Horton, The Connecticut State Constitution: A Reference Guide 73. Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Del. Const. art. I, sec. 20 (enacted 1987). Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Fla. Const. art. I, sec. 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990). 1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, sec. 21. 1865: Clause omitted. 1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, sec. 22. 1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, sec. 20. 1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Ga. Const. art. I, sec. 1, VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, sec. XXII). 1865: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Art. I, sec. 4. 1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, sec. 14. Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Haw. Const. art. I, sec. 17 (enacted 1950). Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Idaho Const. art. I, sec. 11 (enacted 1978). 1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, sec. 11. Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Ill. Const. art. I, sec. 22 (enacted 1970). Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Ind. Const. art. I, sec. 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, sec. 32). 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, sec. 20. Iowa: No provision. Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, sec. 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, sec. 4). Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . . Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. Ky. Const. sec. 1 (enacted 1891). 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, sec. 23. 1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, sec. 23. 1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, sec. 25. Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. La. Const. art. I, sec. 11 (enacted 1974). 1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3. Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Maine Const. art. I, sec. 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision, see Marshall J. Tinkle, The Maine State Constitution: A Reference Guide 48). 1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, sec. 16. Maryland: No provision. Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780). Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Mich. Const. art. I, sec. 6 (enacted 1835). Minnesota: No provision. Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Miss. Const. art. III, sec. 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, sec. 12). 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, sec. 23. 1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, sec. 23. 1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, sec. 15. Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Missouri Const. art. I, sec. 23 (enacted 1945). 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, sec. 3. 1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, sec. 8. 1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, sec. 17. Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Mont. Const. art. II, sec. 12 (enacted 1889). Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Neb. Const. art. I, sec. 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988). Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Nev. Const. art. I, sec. 11(1) (enacted 1982). New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. N.H. Const pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982). New Jersey: No provision. New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. N.M. Const. Art. II, sec. 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986). 1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." New York: No provision. North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. N.C. Const. Art. 1, sec. 30 (enacted 1971). 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, sec. XVII. 1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, sec. 24. 1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice." North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. N.D. Const. Art. I, sec. 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984). Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Ohio Const. Art. I, sec. 4 (enacted 1851). 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, sec. 20. Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Okla. Const. art. II, sec. 26 (enacted 1907). Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Or. Const. Art. I, sec. 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, sec. 28). Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Penn. Const. Art. 1, sec. 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, sec. 21). 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. R.I. Const. art. I, sec. 22 (enacted 1842). South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. S.C. Const. art. 1, sec. 20 (enacted 1895). 1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, sec. 28. South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. S.D. Const. art. VI, sec. 24 (enacted 1889). Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Tenn. Const. art. I, sec. 26 (enacted 1870). 1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, sec. 26. 1834: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, sec. 26. Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Tex. Const. art. I, sec. 23 (enacted 1876). 1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14. 1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, sec. 13. 1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, sec. 13. Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Utah Const. art. I, sec. 6 (enacted 1984). 1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law." Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Va. Const. art. I, sec. 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971). Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Wash. Const. art. I, sec. 24 (enacted 1889). West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. W. Va. Const. art. III, sec. 22 (enacted 1986). Wisconsin: No provision. Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Wyo. Const. art. I, sec. 24 (enacted 1889). [------------------------- 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: Brady Law (fwd) Date: 16 Jul 1998 21:13:58 PST On Jul 16, pete_ciancia@email.mobil.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Coalition for Constitutional Liberties Weekly Update for 7/17/98 Volume I, Number 22 Brought to you by the Center for Technology Policy of the Free Congress Foundation Lisa S. Dean, Director (mailto:lsdean@fcref.org) Patrick S. Poole, Deputy Director (mailto:ppoole@fcref.org) Oliver Black, Research Associate ((nologymailto:oblack@fcref.org) phone: 202-546-3000 fax: 202-544-2819 http://www.freecongress.org/ For a Web version of this update go to: http://www.freecongress.org/cfcl/latest.htm Sen. Smith Looks to Gut Brady Law Registration In early June, the FBI released its draft proposals for implementing the Brady Registration Act. Among other things, the FBI wants to register gun owners for at least 18 months and to impose an additional tax on certain gun owners. After the FBI draft regulations were issued, Senator Bob Smith put the FBI on notice regarding his intentions to get an amendment placed in an upcoming appropriations bill. The Smith Amendment would defund the ability of the FBI to collect a tax on gun owners. Moreover, it would defund any attempt by the FBI to use the Brady instant check as a mechanism to keep gun owners' names, and requires the "immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever." Finally, the Smith amendment improves upon other proposals in Congress that would seek to prevent the FBI from registering gun buyers. Other bills leave the "policing" of the FBI to Attorney General Janet Reno. Not Senator Smith's language. His proposal specifically allows for aggrieved private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney's fees. >From Gun Owners of America Alert: http://www.gunowners.org/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: The M-16 in Viet Nam, Part II Date: 18 Jul 1998 07:36:22 -0700 Hi people - For those of you that enjoyed reading Dick Culver's Part I about the problems of the Matty Mattel Mouse Gun in Viet Nam, Part II is now on his website. It covers more of the technical reasons for the failures, and it's another excellent read. http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html - Monte Let the sea roar and its fulness, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord. For He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with equity. - Psalm 98 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #94 (fwd) Date: 18 Jul 1998 22:55:47 PST On Jul 19, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 19, 1998 #94 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at:=20 http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html WATCHING THE WHITE HOUSE IMPLODE The district court, the appellate court and=20 the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court all said that=20 Clinton=92s Secret Service guards and bodyguards must=20 testify before the grand jury. The Justice Department=20 was, of course, trying to block that testimony. However,=20 Reno was effectively told to kiss-off and stop acting like=20 the Clinton defense team. Only the Independent Counsel=20 represents the United States in this matter, said the=20 Courts. Denying the administration=92s application for=20 a stay, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in part: =20 =93The opinion of the court of appeals seems to me cogent=20 and correct. The district court which considered the=20 matter was also of that view, and none of the nine judges=20 of the court of appeals even requested a vote on the=20 applicant's suggestion for rehearing en banc.=94 As with the Nixon White House, there are audio=20 and (now) video tapes, telephone logs, parking passes and=20 visitor logs to examine. All these are under the direct=20 control of the Secret Service. At one time there were up=20 to four security cameras in the Oval Office alone --=20 monitored by the Secret Service. That could make for some=20 very interesting news-clips, if rumors of philandering are=20 true and the cameras are still installed. Also before the grand jury, and further=20 straining the Clintons=92 envelope of secrecy, is Linda=20 Tripp (http://www.lindatripp.com/). Tripp has already=20 spent six days before Starr=92s special grand jury and there=20 are more to come. Linda Tripp says of her days before the=20 grand jury, =93... the media have inaccurately characterized=20 the content of my testimony, to date, before the federal=20 grand jury in Washington, D.C. =85 I continue to believe=20 that it is my obligation to testify truthfully and=20 completely and this is what I will continue to do.=94 She=20 also stated: =93I fully intend to share this information=20 with the public at a later date, once the investigation=20 has concluded.=94 Our complements to Linda, who may yet=20 become the hero of the year in all this. We hope that=20 her courage in telling the truth is emulated by all=20 involved. Also important was the action taken by the=20 =93Big Seven=94 organizations of state and local governments. =20 The so called Big Seven includes the National Governors=20 Association, National Conference of State Legislatures,=20 the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Conference of=20 Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National=20 Association of Counties and the International City/County=20 Management Association. They took issue with Clinton=92s=20 new Executive Order 13083 on federalism. Therefore, they=20 drafted a letter to Clinton demanding that he withdraw the=20 executive order and backed it up with a visit to Mickey=20 Ibarra, the chief of White House intergovernmental=20 relations. Part of the complaint, as reported by the=20 Washington Post, was that no state or local government=20 official was consulted in the drafting of the executive=20 order. The directive, the Big Seven officials said in the=20 letter, =93calls into question fundamental principles of=20 federalism.=94 That=92s an understatement. Clinton=92s=20 executive order just about abolishes federalism. The Washington Post reports: =93White House=20 officials yesterday denied the order signaled any change=20 of policy and scrambled to appease the Big Seven, knowing=20 that almost all the groups will be meeting in the next few=20 weeks and that congressional Republicans are on the trail=20 of the controversy. Indeed, yesterday afternoon, Barry J.=20 Toiv, a White House spokesman, said administration=20 officials had decided to recommend to the president that=20 he issue another order delaying implementation of the=20 first one so officials would have the opportunity to meet=20 and discuss the issues with state and local authorities.=94 Meanwhile, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) introduced=20 H.R. 4197, the "State Sovereignty Act of 1998.=94 =20 (www.house.gov/barr/hr4197.htm) The bill reads in part=20 [spelling corrected]: =93(a) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. -- The=20 head of each Federal department and each Federal agency=20 shall ensure that each activity of the department or=20 agency, respectively, is carried out in accordance with=20 all provisions of Executive Order 12612 (as in effect on=20 October 26, 1987) as apply to the activity under the terms=20 of that Executive Order. =93(b) LATER ORDER OF NO FORCE OF EFFECT. ---=20 Executive Order 13083, issued May 14, 1998 shall have no=20 force or effect.=94 We support Barr=92s bill as a first step, but=20 also suggest that President Reagan=92s Executive Order 12612=20 be written into federal statute by Congress. For a side by side comparison of Both the=20 Reagan and Clinton executive orders on federalism, visit=20 the Free Republic web site at:=20 http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a398441.htm=20 Contact all State legislators and Members of=20 Congress. We must demand that true federalism again=20 becomes the supreme law of the land. HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER. . . . .=20 As the =93silly season=94 heats up (campaign=20 season) again, perhaps we should start reporting on the=20 real energy driving politics in Washington: money. According to a joint study by the Associated=20 Press and the Center for Responsive Politics, there are=20 14,484 registered lobbyists on Capitol Hill. That is,=20 lobbyists on Capitol Hill outnumber Members of Congress=20 27 to 1. These special interest lobbyists spend one- billion one-hundred seventy million dollars a year to=20 lobby Congress. And, those are only the professional=20 lobbyists who publicly admit to their activities. The Washington Times reported that the most=20 heavily lobbied issues last year were the federal budget,=20 taxes, health, transportation, and defense. Spending a=20 whopping $17.1 million, the biggest spender last year was=20 the American Medical Association. Within industry=20 categories, telecommunications was the biggest spender at=20 $63.96 million. The pharmaceutical industry spent $59.7=20 million for lobbying; oil and gas, $51.7 million; defense,=20 $40 million; the automobile industry, $34.6 million; and=20 business groups, $24.6 million. On average, about $21.9-million is spent=20 annually lobbying each Member of Congress. And the above=20 numbers do not include Political Action Committee campaign=20 contributions, issue orientated advertising and other such=20 multimillion dollar incidentals. Anyone see a problem here yet? Because,=20 folks, the above numbers have nothing whatsoever to do=20 with what the individual voters back home kick in to the=20 Congressional campaign funds. All the above was business,=20 union, State and local government money. Foreign=20 government lobbying money is in there too, of course. But=20 don=92t look for foreign government accountings because such=20 spending is illegal. So, unlike China, most foreigners=20 have some very sophisticated ways of hiding (money- laundering) their contributions. The functions of the lobbyist are many, but=20 they all revolve around influencing the vote of Members of=20 Congress. This always includes paying for the votes=20 through contributions to campaign (and other) funds, of=20 course. But it can also include actually writing bills to=20 be introduced in Congress, holding special =93meet and=20 greet=94 parties and outings for Members of Congress and,=20 of course, sponsoring those ever-present campaign fund- raisers. While in Washington, many Members of Congress=20 spend much of their free time attending these functions. =20 They must, because that is how they receive a large chunk=20 of their campaign funds. Now comes the new campaign finance bill we=20 hear so much about. The bill was written with strong=20 input from Washington special interest lobbyists and, of=20 course, sitting Members of Congress who want what those=20 lobbyists have to offer: money. Therefore, we notice that=20 most constraints proposed by that bill (depending on which=20 version) are placed on small groups and normal people. But there is yet another very interesting=20 aspect of that campaign finance bill: There are at least=20 three U.S. Supreme Court opinions (controlling legal=20 opinions, in Al Gore speak) that would make some aspects=20 of any version of the bill unconstitutional from the day=20 it is passed -- if any version ever is passed. Do we need campaign finance reform? =20 Definitely. But it would probably be a good idea if=20 sitting politicians and currently active lobbyists did not=20 have a hand in crafting such reform. Expecting them to=20 restrict themselves is kind of like asking my big male=20 Great Dane to sit by quietly and watch the local raccoon=20 eat the dog food out of his bowl. Even the wild raccoon=20 knows there ain=92t going to be any days like that. We certainly need to keep the special interest=20 lobbyists away from crafting campaign finance bills. =20 Keeping politicians out of the process, however, may be a=20 little more difficult. There is a way, but it=92s not easy=20 to pull off properly. All politicians should get their campaign=20 funds, 100% of their campaign funds, from voting=20 constituents in their district. Those not registered to=20 vote should not be allowed to contribute to campaign funds. =20 Furthermore, the maximum contribution allowable should be=20 $1,000 per registered voter. Any registered voter in the=20 district should be able to help in an election campaign,=20 just not for pay (excepting those few paid by the campaign=20 funds). Such an arrangement would make Members of=20 Congress rather attentive to the people in their districts. =20 It would also allow new blood to get elected more often as=20 they would be home and in position to collect campaign=20 contributions easier. Paid professional lobbyists should be outlawed. =20 Any person may lobby any member of government, so long as=20 they are not paid to do so -- or promising campaign=20 (bribes) contributions. The federal government was, after all, intended=20 to be a representative government. No more should well- funded lobbyists representing whatever from a state a=20 thousand miles away from your district have the ear of=20 your Member of Congress to propose projects (and laws)=20 you and others in your district may not agree with. There=20 could still be some such requests from time to time, but=20 all constituents would at least be on equal footing with=20 the out of district interlopers. And that $1.17-billion=20 currently spent on lobbying Capitol Hill every year can be=20 distributed to corporation shareholders, union members=20 and/or taxpayers where it belongs. The problem with the above scheme is that=20 it would probably require a Constitutional amendment. For more on campaign finance, go to: =20 http://www.campaignfinance.org/ STEALING FREEDOM ONE LIE AT A TIME Another proposal for oppression was recently=20 released by the Department of Justice. The report was=20 written by the National Institute of Justice, which is the=20 Justice research division charged with assessing existing=20 Department of Justice policies and recommending solutions. =20 The report states that there is a rampant lack of respect=20 for the justice system among the nation's youth, and that=20 youngsters do not recognize the societal relevance of=20 truthful testimony under oath. =93In a number of jurisdictions, statutes against=20 witness tampering, suborning perjury (encouraging perjury=20 by threats or inducements), or obstruction of justice do=20 not carry high enough penalties to either deter or=20 substantially punish witness intimidation . . . defendants=20 are reported to feel they have little to lose -- and a=20 great deal to gain (from perjury and obstruction).=94 Now, where in the world would American kids=20 learn about things like witness tampering, suborning=20 perjury and obstruction of justice? Could it be that the=20 nightly news of the goings on at the White House has=20 become a national tutorial on such things? The Clintons and staff lie to the nation=20 regularly. In fact, the White House has a whole stable of=20 talking heads paid to lie to us on television each and=20 every evening. We know they are lying, and the TV=20 newscasters know they are lying. But, as our kids see it,=20 the adults on television humor them along and act as if=20 they were telling the truth. No one actually expects anyone from the=20 executive branch to commit the truth anymore, and they=20 don=92t very often. Rather, they often act like the=20 business of conducting the people=92s business is none of=20 the people=92s business. Take FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, for instance. =20 Under Freeh, the FBI adopted a highly restrictive media=20 policy called "Bright Line." Freeh=92s bright line means=20 that if an FBI agent talks to the press, they will be=20 fired. And, apparently some agents were fired. Although=20 supposedly a public servant, Freeh takes the position that=20 the American people are not to know anything. Period. These =93Justice=94 people no longer deserve our=20 respect. They can and do tell us, or omit, anything they=20 please. Yet, we note that there is a law about lying to=20 them. Shouldn=92t it work both ways? And then there=92s Congress. Americans watched=20 numerous Congressional hearings in which both Members of=20 Congress and witnesses were fabricating the truth. In the=20 law, that is called perjury. However, no one was ever=20 arrested. Why in the world should American citizens=20 take any federal law seriously when public officials=20 regularly violate many of them at will? In Detroit, kids=20 saw a Member of Congress smoking a joint, then try to give=20 a speech while looking like he could take a nose-dive off=20 the stage at any point. And, we might add, his best=20 friend, a well known State Senator, went to prison for=20 crack cocaine. A couple hundred Detroit kids know these=20 stories well. Kids also notice when two Members of Congress=20 are debating an issue from greatly different positions. =20 Publicly debating the issues should be encouraged. But=20 when there are extreme differences on the same issue, it=20 often becomes evident that at least one side must have=20 vacated the arena of truth. The Department of Justice report is correct. =20 Many Americans feel they have little to lose and a great=20 deal to gain from perjury and obstruction of justice. But=20 they come by that feeling honestly, by watching the=20 actions of public officials. And if it works for public=20 officials, which it does, then why not do it? As far as the law itself is concerned, it can=20 no longer be obeyed. For, as James Madison admonishes in=20 The Federalist Papers No. 62:=20 =93It will be of little avail to the people that=20 the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws=20 be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so=20 incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be=20 repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or=20 undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what=20 the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law=20 is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a=20 rule, which is little known, and less fixed?=94 All most Americans want is to be let alone. =20 The volumes of laws, rules and regulations have=20 overwhelmed the ability of the American public to=20 understand. Most in the federal government seem to run=20 government at their own personal pleasure and for their=20 own personal needs. That they are no longer respected by=20 the American people is evidenced by that fact that not=20 even half of America=92s registered voters will turn out for=20 an election. Simply put, for government officials to be=20 respected, they must first respect the American people. =20 Stealing our freedom with every new law, rule and=20 regulation is not a way to show respect. Repealing most=20 of them would be a start. GORE: THE SKY IS FALLING Here comes Ozone-head Al Gore again, spouting=20 that global warming stuff. Now they=92re saying that we=20 just had the warmest six months ever recorded on Earth,=20 and that July is likely to set a record as well. Here in=20 the foothills of Appalachia, we saw things a bit=20 differently -- like a cold spring and a cool and rainy=20 early summer -- but apparently we don=92t count. Anyway, Vice President Al Gore, brought a few=20 federal climate officials to the White House last week to=20 announce his latest global temperature propaganda. He=20 said there was =93evidence=94 of a long-term warming of the=20 planet because of man-made pollution. =93How much more=20 proof do we need that global warming is real?=94 Gore=20 declared as he called for even more and harsher=20 regulations. One problem is that few atmospheric scientists=20 outside of government agree with Gore. In fact, many of=20 the scientists monitoring the earth=92s temperature by=20 satellite actually think the earth may be cooling slightly. The offending pollutant du jour, of course,=20 is the carbon dioxide caused by burning of fossil fuels,=20 breathing, plants growing, and generally most everything=20 else in life. Funny thing about carbon dioxide, it is=20 very necessary for every type of life we know about at=20 this time. So, it was with great pleasure that we found=20 an excellent report on the subject that was signed off on=20 by quite a few practicing scientists. The text is=20 readable by non-scientists, and we wholeheartedly=20 recommend this report to anyone interested in this issue. =20 The abstract describes the text thusly: =93A review of the research literature concerning=20 the environmental consequences of increased levels of=20 atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that=20 increases during the 20th Century have produced no=20 deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or=20 temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however,=20 markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of=20 harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor=20 greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform=20 to current experimental knowledge.=94 Or, as I informed our regional federal EPA=20 director, =93If you have a little extra CO2, please send it=20 over to us. Local farmers would certainly appreciate it,=20 as their crops would grow larger and faster. And, the=20 acceleration of plant growth would replace the CO2 with=20 oxygen.=94 The report=92s discussion section tells the story=20 specifically and should be required reading for all=20 bureaucrats: =93There are no experimental data to support=20 the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other=20 greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause=20 catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. =20 To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest=20 carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have=20 decreased.=20 =93We also need not worry about environmental=20 calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming=20 trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during=20 the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer=20 weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the=20 habitability of colder regions. =91Global warming,=92 an=20 invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human=20 production of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has=20 been proposed. =93Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has=20 not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the=20 extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not=20 significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does,=20 however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates=20 of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. =20 Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. =93As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed=20 and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the=20 globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. =20 This will help to maintain and improve the health,=20 longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. =93Human activities are believed to be responsible for the=20 rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving=20 the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground=20 to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for=20 conversion into living things. We are living in an=20 increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a=20 result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an=20 Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with=20 which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and=20 unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.=94 The report is titled: =93Environmental Effects=20 of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,=94 and was authored=20 by Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon,=20 and Zachary W. Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science=20 and Medicine, and the George C. Marshall Institute. Find the paper at: =20 http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm The text is=20 actually designed to petition government. ABOLISH COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM We have wanted to tell Congress to shut up=20 many times and on many issues. We have not, however,=20 because the Constitution gives a Member of Congress the=20 expressed right to say anything they wish on any issue,=20 while on the floor. So, it was with great interest that=20 we read that foreign communists are demanding that the=20 Clinton administration muzzle Congress. According to the Hong Kong Standard last=20 week, the dictators in Beijing, China demanded the Clinton=20 administration =93take steps to rein in the US Congress to=20 put a stop to resolutions it sees as hostile.=94 Clinton, of course, said things while in China=20 that go directly against our established Taiwan policy. =20 That is, Clinton hinted around that he believes Taiwan to=20 be a wayward Chinese province which should join the=20 mainland communist dictatorship. China thinks of Taiwan as a rebel province=20 that is still part of China, not a sovereign state. =20 =93Taiwan, as a part of China, is not entitled whatsoever to=20 join the United Nations (UN),=94 a Chinese Foreign Ministry=20 Spokesman said at a press conference in Beijing. =20 Therefore, China takes the position that foreign=20 governments must not support Taiwan, and says the island=20 is unqualified to join any world bodies, including the=20 World Bank and International Monitory Fund. Our House and Senate, still having something=20 resembling common sense once in a while (and respecting=20 those campaign contributions they have received over the=20 years), proposed resolutions in favor of Taiwan=20 independence -- err, in favor of keeping Taiwan as it is,=20 anyway. The Senate=92s resolution immediately passed,=20 reaffirming US commitments toward Taiwan and supporting=20 the island's entry into the World Bank and International=20 Monetary Fund. The resolutions also repeat a U.S. pledge=20 to help Taiwan maintain a sufficient self-defense=20 capability and called on China to renounce the use of=20 force against the island. Well, apparently the communist dictatorship=92s=20 Foreign Ministry blew a gasket. =93We are strongly opposed=20 and express our dissatisfaction=94 at the Senate resolutions=20 that were aimed at =93interfering in China's internal=20 affairs,=94 Foreign Ministry spokesman Tang Guoqiang was=20 reported as saying. As reported, the communist dictators said that=20 =93some members of the US Congress are =91tabling anti-China=20 resolutions one after the other, trying to obstruct the=20 improvement and development of China-US relations. They=20 will not succeed in their attempts=92.=94 =93We hope that the US government will adopt=20 effective measures to eliminate interference and prevent=20 Congress from passing anti-China resolutions so that Sino- US relations will not be harmed.=94 Then they instructed us=20 that: =93The US constitution entitles the government =91to=20 adopt effective measures to prevent the Congress from=20 passing such resolutions=92.=94 Yo -- Commie Dictators! We have a real news=20 flash for you. We can=92t even get Congress to obey our=20 Constitution, which is effectively their job description. =20 Today, the Congress of the United States does anything it=20 pleases. In certain circumstances, the president may veto=20 a bill and stop it from becoming law. But no one -- not=20 the people, nor the president or the Courts -- can make=20 them shut up. They can lie, twist the truth, obfuscate,=20 and hide things form the people. And they do so,=20 regularly. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do=20 about it, either. That is written in our supreme law, the=20 Constitution. So, don=92t look for them to start listening=20 to a communist dictatorship on the other side of the=20 world. They will not. Besides, in this matter, Congress has the=20 support of most of the American people. Simply put, we=20 want communism and socialism abolished, not expanded. =93We firmly believe that the issue of Taiwan=20 will eventually be settled properly in accordance with the=20 guideline of =91Peaceful reunification and one country, two=20 systems=92,=94 Tang said; adding that the reunification of the=20 motherland is the fundamental guarantee for the interests=20 of the Taiwan compatriots. =93With the accomplishment of the motherland=92s=20 peaceful reunification, the Taiwan compatriots, together=20 with the rest of the Chinese people from all ethnic=20 groups, will enjoy fully the dignity and glory of the=20 motherland internationally,=94 the communist spokesman said. That=92s probably true. If under the communist Chinese=20 government, the so-called =93Taiwan compatriots=94 will either=20 have to conform to the communist oppressors or be told to=20 kneel down and take a bullet to the back of the head. For more information on the opinions of the=20 communist Chinese dictators, visit their Washington=20 Embassy web page at: http://www.china-embassy.org/ -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: New Online Poll (fwd) Date: 19 Jul 1998 16:39:56 PST On Jul 19, Jeff Quinton wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Should Clinton be impeached? Vote at http://www.palmettojournal.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: Jack Perrine Subject: From Orlin: The Donaldson Report on TWA coverup Date: 19 Jul 1998 21:56:31 -0700 At the current time Orlin's WWW page (www.aci.net) is filled with pointers to documents that have more information on what is discussed below. However, most of them seem to be PDF FORMAT which are not of any help unless you go to ACROBAT and down load a reader Jack Hey, Leslie Stahl: Eat this The following report, issued two years after the TWA800 crash, confirms most of my initial assertions, based on sources at the highest level of the investigation, that were made within a few days of the crash on July 17, 1996. Interim Report on the Crash of TWA Flight 800 and the Actions of the NTSB and the FBI by Commander William S. Donaldson III, USN Ret. in cooperation with Associated Retired Aviation Professionals for the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION U.S. House of Representatives July 17, 1998 The complete Donaldson Report is available for download in PDF or GIF format here: Donaldson Report. Summary The preponderance of facts in this report support the following conclusions: 1. That TWA FL800 was intentionally destroyed by a powerful, proximity fused, airbursting, anti-aircraft weapon, launched from a position approximately one nautical mile off shore and three nautical miles east of Moriches Inlet, Long Island, New York. 2. That TWA FL800 was also engaged, seconds later by a second missile, fired from a closer position to the south of TWA FL800's track. 3. That senior FBI agents were close eyewitnesses to the shoot down. That those FBI Agents believed the aircraft was shot down and that those FBI Agents did not file eyewitness reports, FBI 302 forms. 4. That no evidence has yet been developed that implicates the US military as participants in the loss of TWA FL800. 5. That the United States Justice Department moved on 24 July 1996 to suborn Title 49 U.S. Code by denying access of Parties to the Investigation and NTSB Investigators to eyewitness and real evidence. 6. That the White House's early public statements, made without justification, impugned or ignored eyewitness statements to discredit missile sighting reports. 7. That terrorist communiques in the Mideast that predicted the time of the attack on the United States, were also treated with contempt as being totally unfounded by White House spokespersons. 8. That United States was under specific threat of terrorist attack against airports and airliners in the New York area in retaliation for the conviction of the World Trade Center conspirators. 9. That the Administration was aware that a sighting of a probable unguided missile was made on the evening of 17 November 1995, by two airline crews from Lufthansa and British Airways at altitude near Long Island. 10. That FBI Agents have not specifically identified surface radar targets that were at the geographic points eyewitnesses indicate as the source of the missile fire. 11. That one unidentified surface radar target fled the scene of the shootdown at 30 knots. When TWA FL800 exploded, the contact was only 2.9 nautical miles (nm) away. 12. That the 30 knot surface target avoided visual contact with the other surface targets on a heading of 203 (degrees)T, and did not stop or turn to provide assistance. 13. That FBI counter-terrorism Agents briefed the NTSB Operational Factors Group, including the Parties to the Investigation, in January of 1997, specifically pointing out where a missile was launched. 14. That the FBI is in possession of eyewitness testimony that proves, without doubt, TWA FL800 came under missile attack and refuses to release this information. 15. That the FBI is in possession of high explosive chemical residue evidence on interior and exterior parts first identified by bomb sniffing dogs at Calverton, then verified as a specific high explosive by chemical sniffers at Calverton. 16. That the FBI leadership attacked the validity of their own chemical residue findings after using the same FBI Laboratory personnel who were responsible for falsifying laboratory evidence in hundreds of previous cases. 17. That the FBI is in possession of shrapnel removed from the bodies of victims, and is holding laboratory findings secret. 18. That the FBI contrived a plausible excuse for the presence of high explosive residue in the aircraft as having been contaminated by bomb sniffing dog training alleged to have been done in St. Louis on 10 June 1996. 19. That the FBI had no answer as to why the dog's handler's placement of training samples in the aircraft did not match the locations where the contamination was found on aircraft parts. 20. That the NTSB leadership began a public media campaign in April 1997, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that a center wing tank explosion caused the mishap. 21. That NTSB officials directed a NASA laboratory to immediately stop testing when nitrates (explosive residues) were found on critical early debris. 22. That a TWA employee caught an NTSB official falsifying the Debris Field data record in the placement of aircraft seats. 23. That when evidence of this act was provided to the Chairman of the NTSB (including pictures taken by the NYPD), in a letter written by TWA attorneys, Mr. Hall insisted the TWA employee be removed and that she be targeted for investigation and indictment. 24. That NTSB officials have been relentlessly and persistently eliminating or rewriting findings in the database that cannot be explained in their theory. 25. That the NTSB refused to accept the testimony of Captain Mundo, the flight engineer on the flight previous to FL800, who stated that he left ZERO fuel in the center wing tank. 26. That the tail of the aircraft failed shortly after the nose came off, which proved a massive outside force brought down FL800. 27. That the NTSB refuses to release Debris Field information or the Bruntingthorpe explosive test data to the parties to the investigation, because both contain powerful exculpatory evidence refuting a center wing tank initiating event. 28. That because of the results of the Bruntingthorpe tests, the NTSB leadership has refused to allow the CVR Analysis Group to reconvene. 29. That the NTSB leadership, now in possession of redacted eyewitness forms from the FBI, refuses their own investigators access to them. 30. That the NTSB leadership has oddly shown absolutely no interest in eyewitness testimony despite the fact eyewitnesses have information vital to the airborne breakup sequence and placement of floating debris. 31. That there is the appearance the Justice Department delayed seven months to file frivilous criminal charges and arrest Captain Stacy and Mr. and Mrs. Sanders in order to threaten and subdue disgruntled investigators immediately prior to the Baltimore NTSB Public Hearing. 32. That there is the appearance the FBI intentionally tried to arrest the Sanders family while they were outside of New York in order to place them in the limbo of the criminal transportation system. 33. That there is the appearance of prosecutorial misconduct in the Sanders and Stacey cases that include a threatened raid of CBS headquarters in New York and seizure of exculpatory evidence by the FBI as well as the removal of similar evidence from Calverton. 34. That non-government investigators who are members of the Principal Parties cannot go to Calverton without Government escort. 35. That the Government refused the help of professional ocean salvage operators who had equipment on site on 18 July 1996. Even though Weeks Marine and AT&T, who both routinely contracted with the Government in the past, had equipment to support divers, robot submarines, lift and storage capabilityfar superior to the Navy's, already on-site, their assistance was refused. 36. That the CIA contrived with the FBI, a knowingly false crash scenario, alleged to have been drawn from eyewitness statements, produced a false video, and released it to the mass media. 37. That FBI officials are now refusing to release eyewitness statementsback to the eyewitnesses who gave them and that these eyewitnesses are now filing Freedom of Information Act requestsin hope of obtaining their own statements. 38. That the White House, by categorizing the shootdown of FL800 as a potential crime, instead of a political act of war, has been able to keep the military experts totally isolated from the case. 39. That the White House has ignored a call for a congressional inquiry by a past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 40. That this report provides "clear and credible evidence" that officials in the Clinton Administration are guilty of criminal wrongdoing and that Attorney General Reno should be compelled to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the actions of the NTSB and FBI in covering up evidence that a missile shot down TWA Flight 800. Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Scanland Subject: National (health) ID Date: 21 Jul 1998 07:48:32 -0500 I surprised I've not seen a lot more commentary on this issue on ROC. Don't know where ya'll live but it was front page news in the Houston Chronicle yesterday. And the New York Times. Discussions on a national ID for healthcare purposes are now being held in Chicago. Proponents argue that adequate safeguards for privacy can be put in place under such a scheme. Don't know about everyone else, but _my_ social security card has the "Not for Identification" notice on it, and we now know how that worked out (tried to get a drivers/fishing/hunting license recently?). No matter what they tell you today, the rules can be changed any time there's "reasonable" justification to do so. I'd say about now would be a good time to let your elected reps hear how you feel about this national ID program - it's finally got people's attention, and according to one source, it's getting a rather "cool reception." Let's bury it. Chuck Scanland Spring, Texas ================================================================ It appears that the cardinal sin in the view of the wimp culture is that of being "judgmental." The only way to avoid being judgmental is to have no principles. We were given our brains in order to make judgements, and that includes value judgements. Values, by definition, are valuable, so by all means let us be judgmental! Jump into the argument and win! Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, 7/98 ================================================================ "The desire to order other people around and make them conform to one own's vision takes many forms." - Thomas Sowell Which emphasizes the great difference between those of us who are activist gun owners and other "extremists" who devote themselves to causes. Unlike the zealots who agitate for other causes, from tobacco bans to bunny hugging, we shooters have no wish to push other people around. Our major desire is that they leave us alone. It is odd that nobody has mentioned that difference before. Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, 7/98 ================================================================= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: New CA PRO-GUN lawsuit! (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1998 10:00:50 PST On Jul 20, Chris BeHanna wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On 20 Jul 98 at 17:27, Mueller, Robert wrote: > http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2555122173-b48 > > > 07:31 PM ET 07/17/98 > > California dealer sues over ``racist'' handgun tax > > > SAN LEANDRO, Calif. (Reuters) - The largest gun dealer in > northern California filed suit Friday claiming that a new city > tax on sales of concealable handguns was ``racist'' > discrimination against young black men. > Traders Sports demanded that San Leandro roll back the three > percent tax voters approved by a 53-to-47 percent margin in > June. THIS IS GREAT! Does anyone have an address to send checks to help defer Traders' legal costs? It is so rare that a dealer actually stands up for us, that, IMHO, we should encourage and help those who do. Regards, Chris BeHanna NJ-RKBA List Administrator PGP 2.6.1 public key available behanna@syl.nj.nec.com kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna Lon Horiuchi, give yourself up! Gun control is the rapist's greatest ally GUNS SAVE LIVES [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: U.S. Contemplates Training Chinese Special Forces Date: 21 Jul 1998 22:50:07 -0500 One wonders who would/will be training whom and to do what. Confiscate gu= ns maybe. Maybe seize property under forfeiture laws? Or the fine points of running down civilians with tanks? How to Supress all opposition to the ruling elite?=20 ------ Global Intelligence Update Red Alert July 21, 1998 U.S. Contemplates Training Chinese Special Forces In response to a question at the routine U.S. Department of Defense news briefing on Thursday, July 16, Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon confirmed that the U.S. may consider joint Special Forces training with China. Bacon was asked to "comment on comments today by the commander of the U.S. Special Forces Command that some future joint training with Chin= a would be desirable... Is the Defense Department involved in promoting any such future linkup?" Bacon responded, "In a broad sense, we're looking a= t future military exchanges with China. I'm not aware of any specific look right now at Special Forces operations, but that certainly would be a typ= e of military exchange we would consider. We have agreed since 1996, December of =9196, to explore new ways of improving cooperation between t= he United States and China; new ways of getting our militaries to work together more smoothly in training or other types of missions, and we wil= l continue." The questioner was referring to comments made by U.S. Special Forces Command chief General Peter Schoomaker. Schoomaker had told reporters th= at he thought joint training with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) was "desirable." Said the general, "You need to engage so you develop rappor= t and understanding and have another method of dialogue. What we would encourage is low-level contact at the small-unit level that allows us to.= .. develop trust and confidence that then brings in higher level people." Schoomaker said that Admiral Joseph Prueher, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, had been discussing the idea. During President Clinton's recent visit to China, the two countries reach= ed a reciprocal agreement in which officers from each country would observe certain military exercises of the other. China has reportedly already se= nt observers to the six-nation Rim Pac exercises off Hawaii, and is schedule= d to send observers to the five-nation Cope Thunder exercises in Alaska lat= er in July. In a more active relationship, the U.S. Air Force and Coast Gua= rd will participate with PLA and Hong Kong authorities in search-and-rescue exercises in December. The idea that the Clinton Administration could be considering an arrangement in which the U.S. Special Forces would train the PLA is staggering. The Administration has faced intense criticism of its China policy, from its decision to extend China's Most-Favored Nation trade status to Clinton's visit to Beijing. Considering the PLA's abysmal and very public record in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Tiananmen Square, the Administration's consideration of a plan to train the PLA in unconvention= al warfare shows questionable political judgement at best. The move could almost be seen as a direct slap in the face to those who would question t= he Administration's China policy. There can be little justification for the exchange from a military standpoint either. The Chinese do not need U.S. training in unconvention= al warfare techniques. We learned from them. Perhaps the proposal is a cov= er for a technology transfer. It could also reflect a U.S. hope that the situation would offer an intelligence-gathering opportunity. But China i= s not so clumsy as to allow any information gathered through the joint operations to be worth the bad public relations the U.S. can expect. The message this proposal sends to Taiwan, Japan, and China's other neighbors can only cause them concern, but perhaps the message is aimed a= t China itself. The only rational justification we can find for U.S. Speci= al Forces training of the PLA is as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with Beijing. Perhaps the Administration hopes that, through exchanges such as this, the U.S. can forestall the emergence of a wholly anti-American sentiment in Beijing and the emergence of an anti-American regional hegemon. Considering the state of China's economy, and our determination that it is destined for economic and social collapse, we believe that this is a vain hope. In its efforts to hold itself together in the face of economic calamity, China will need a scapegoat, and the prime candidate for that role is the U.S. _______________________________________________ To receive free daily Global Intelligence Updates or Computer Security Alerts, sign up on the web at http://www.stratfor.com/mail/, or send your name, organization, position, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail address to alert@stratfor.com ___________________________________________________ STRATFOR Systems, Inc. 3301 Northland Drive, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78731-4939 Phone: 512-454-3626 Fax: 512-454-1614 Internet: http://www.stratfor.com/ Email: info@stratfor.com The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution.=20 ---Doug McKay" =20 Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: MI: The Emperor Wears No Clothes Date: 22 Jul 1998 16:55:30 -0400 Anyone know what she's talking about??? >X-Sender: league@mindspring.com (Unverified) >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) >Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:32:00 -0700 >To: defense@mindspring.com >From: Nancy Lord Johnson >Subject: MI: The Emperor Wears No Clothes > >Something is missing from the recent news from up north. The facts. >Please send this on to anyone who is acting or talking based on >bad info. > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >Before you pack up your gear and head for Michigan, just a few >Q's and A's: > >The gentleman who served the warrants that (supposedly) started >this thing appeared on short-wave recently. He was serving warrants >for the _Defense_ on a murder case, for a man who was a friend of >the recipient. That recipient apparently did not want to testify. >So he allegedly pulled a gun. That's what the assault charge was about. > >Yes, they were on his property. But they were not from the >government and really were there to help -- the accused, their >client. > >Question 1. Why would someone not want to testify for a friend > charged with murder? > >1) Your testimony might hurt him. The solution for this is to explain >it to the guy's lawyer. That usually takes care of it. > >2) Your testimony might hurt you. Statements like "I take the 5th" >can result in another trial, with a new defendant -- you. The >solution for this is to pull a gun and go underground. That might take >care of it. > >Think about this. Please. > >Anyone familiar with me or these parties should know that we are not >on good terms and I have no confidential information to disclose to >you or anyone. What I know everyone knows. Including the feds. >Including the locals. > >Which brings me to question number two: > >Question 2. Why have neither the feds nor Michigan explained this publicly > to avoid a deadly confrontation with one or more "patriot" > rescue teams? > >1) (There is only one on this one.) They don't want to. They want >some van-full of morons to show up at the jailhouse with a pile of >big guns. After the shoot-out, after another 16 people are held on >charges, they will release the fact that this was not about "property rights" >This was not about the Second Amendment. > >It was about the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." It was >about a material witness on a murder case who did not want to testify. > >At DOJ in Washington, they are licking their chops. The SPLC and the >ADL will have fun with it too. And we will lose whatever progress we >have made over the past few years. > >Right now somebody else is on the run. The Bad Guys. You heard >about Clinton's executive order to abolish the 10th amendment being >rescinded? A 1.6 trillion dollar tax reduction? They are trying very >hard to look like nice guys before anymore people get wise. Everyone >knows about Y2K and the National ID. Gun consfiscation is never going >to fly. Clinton may actually be impeached. Social security >is finally on the chopping block. This is not saying we are out of the >woods, but we are getting there. > >So throw it all out for some guy whose idea of a good disguise is orange >hair. Who did not bother to travel the 30 or so miles to the Canadian border. >Who the cops admitted they would never have questioned if he had not taken >off running as soon as he spotted them. > >Just because he was a big-name short-wave host who told you about the >black helicopters. > >Anybody home? > >For those who want to send back reams of criticism for posting this, >send it to defense@mindspring.com. > >Nancy Lord Johnson > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: Long John Silver's (fwd) Date: 22 Jul 1998 21:40:54 PST On Jul 22, Grubb, Ken wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] CB> Lb> It has come to my attention that the Long John Silver's CB> Lb> restaurant in Franklin, PA. has a sign on its entrance CB> Lb> forbidding the carrying of firearms into the store. CB>Not sure about corporate policy but the one I ate in last week CB>near San Antonio, TX didn't have such a sign. One near me in My Jammy doesn't have such a sign. However, drop 'em an Email and ask 'em whether they know at the corporate HQ about the policy of their store in Franklin, PA. http://www.ljsilvers.com/comments.htm Politely ask them to sway the franchisee in Franklin, or gun owners nationwide may look elsewhere for a quick bite at a fast food joint. Point out the liability both the franchisee and LJS corporate might incur should someone become injured or dead because they were disarmed in the Franklin, PA store. Ken Grubb Miami, FL [------------------------- 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: OPEN letter on STW! (fwd) Date: 22 Jul 1998 21:43:59 PST On Jul 22, Jo wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The following is a copy of a letter from State Representative Sam Rohrer of Pennsylvania to the citizens of Ohio regarding School To Work (STW). STW is being implemented in Minnesota as aggressively as in any other state. It works hand in hand with the Profile of Learning. The two together are one system of education. Many of you are involved in local STW committees. I am sending this in full text also linking to the home page where it can be found directly. Other reference web pages follow on the subject for your further reference, if you are interested. Julie Quist ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ Open letter to citizens of Ohio: http://www.fessler.com/rohrer.html [Letterhead] House of Representatives Commonwealth of Virginia, Harrisburg Samuel E. Rohrer, Member November, 21, 1997 Dear Citizens of the State of Ohio: I write to you as a former Ohio resident, graduate of an Ohio public school and now an active member of the Pennsylvania House of Education, Labor and Appropriations Committees. I am a conservative, a businessman for 16 years before entering public office, and an elected official who believes in America as a representative republic. Throughout this nation, including the State of Ohio, there is currently being implemented a massive restructuring of the educational and employment systems. To a great extent, the average citizen is unaware of the comprehensive changes this restructuring will bring to them, their children and their jobs. As an elected representative to the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I feel a great duty to the people to make available all information possible to allow them the opportunity to make a truly informed decision. At issue is School-to-Work and the accompanying programs it incorporates. If I would not have studied, researched, and talked with hundreds of people on the topic of STW, Goals 2000, Medicaid in the schools, labor development plans, and traveled the world many times over while in business, I may have found some of what certain opponents have said about School-to-Work hard to believe. However, that is not the case. Not only do I agree with the concerns as expressed by such noted individuals as Phyllis Schlafly and State Board Member Diana Fessler, as a legislator I can add the perspective of how the process of promoting School-to-Work violates my view of freedom in this American republic. My reasons for not only questioning but opposing School-to-Work are as follows: 1.STW is deceptively promoted to the a) public; b) to legislators; c) to business and labor alike. STW is being promoted as an advanced version of our traditional vo-tech educational program. It attempts to usurp the good will and success of existing vo-tech programs and even to fraudulently take credit for their success. In reality, while STW includes a vo-tech component it is deceptive to lead the public and the legislators to assume this narrow equation. STW will destroy most current vo-tech programs by usurping the decision-making regarding vocational choices from the local school and place it with the various labor boards, regional forecasters and governmental directives. STW is being promoted to business and employers as the answer to the obvious academic and skill deficiencies of the current high school graduates. Employers are being fraudulently led to believe that under-skilled laborers can be corrected by a "high-tech" "TQM" national program "bench-marked" to "world-class" standards. This may sound good, but that's all. The problem today is kids aren't taught how to read, and they are taught moral relativism that produces kids with high self esteem but bad moral character and deficient academic preparation. STW in none of its components addresses with of these root problems. As a result, business is fooled into accepting a cleverly disguised government program that mandates yet more costly business controls. 2.The history of School-to-Work and its ultimate design is covered up or at best not discussed. If the average STW participant know the historical genesis of STW and its ultimate mature design they would turn and devour the program. That is why the proponents work very hard at hiding the fact that STW is modeled after the Marxist and German models. When fully implemented, STW and its accompanying program will result in a "total managed economy" while all employment and educational decisions are made by someone other than the parent, child, employer, or educator. Few like to talk about the orchestrated components of the National Governors Association and Goals 2000, OBE, Title I funding, Medicaid, and the U.S. Labor Department SCANS. Proponents have tried to fool legislators into thinking these programs are not federally directed. Even the Pennsylvania Governor's top policy advisor insisted to me sometime ago, that STW had absolutely no relationship to Goals 2000 or OBE even though they had just signed a contract with the federal government that makes the connections crystal clear. 3.The STW implementation strategy violates the principles of a representative republic and the Separation of Powers. In state after state, the executive branch (Governor's office) consistent with their pact to support Goals 2000 etc. have pursued federal monies, signed away valuable state sovereignty rights and entered into binding contracts without involving the General Assemblies. By violating the constitutional process, the necessary scrutiny afforded legislative and public debate has been preempted. Across this nation, legislature after legislature has witnessed a gross violation. The expanded authority that STW and other contracts place in the Governor's office to distribute the dollars and implement public policy according to the contract is dangerous, foolish, and unconstitutional. Every Governor that embarks on this process violates his constitutional oath! The executive branch is to enforce the law not make the law! No one who claims to be a conservative can support such violations. In fact, the failure to recognize such violations in this situation is an even greater travesty. 4.Goals 2000 and STW violate the constitutional prohibitions against Federal government. Although the federal government has been increasingly involved in education within the states, this involvement nonetheless violates the Constitution. For the very reasons the founding fathers expressly disallowed federal involvement in state prerogatives, Goals 2000 and School-to-Work are now a problem. While some people obviously argue the benefits of federal involvement, this begs the question. For any conservative to reach out and embrace a federal plan and somehow think state officials will craft their own unique plan for their state is either willingly ignorant or deceived. Every Goals 2000 state will conform to the terms of the contracts they have signed and Ohio will too. The federal strings are long and strong. 5.STW aggressively attacks the foundation of parental control and local control. At the heart of my concern and all constitutional conservatives is the issue of control. America is not Germany, Japan, Russia, or China. We have been the nation of freedom, the world's most blessed representative republic. We are not a democracy. We were never designed to be anything other than a nation in whom the power was vested in the people and with whom a contract identifying the rights of the people are defined in a constitution which defines the scope of government. The very nature of Goals 2000 and STW and most other federal government programs attack the very essence of who we are. When combined with the organization of the STW program and the violations of Constitutional prohibitions, control is usurped from the people. All those who participate in such moves are therefore guilty of what our founding fathers called treason. It is this basic change in control that identifies the major problems with STW and Goals 2000. Decision making for education, vocational choices, and life decisions must be kept at the local level with parents and their assigns. This federally directed program strikes at the heart of this authority and if for no other reason is why every American let alone a true conservative demands rejection. In conclusion, if you are like some people with whom I have talked, you may think that Ohio is somehow unique. You may say that since you have not yet seen any Ohio student "job matched" or students judged as "human resources", that STW does not have an agenda. All I can say is that you are only looking at "the baby." The baby will grow up. When it does, it will look just like its parent and we don't have to go too far to see it! (I.e., recent articles in Newsweek, Businessweek) Citizen of Ohio, you should know that the goal of education is not solely employment. The employer and business is not the customer of education. The goal of education is to fully equip the young person in the basic academic foundations and when combined with moral instruction to produce an individual who best glorify his Creator. The parents who possess the responsibility of education are the customers. It is only the parent who legitimately sits in the driver's seat. For the sake of freedom and the continuance of this nation as we have known it, please consider these concerns before embracing the School-to-Work agenda. Sincerely, Samuel E. Rohrer State Representative 128th Legislative District SER:jjc [House Box 202020, Main Capitol, Room 423, South Office Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020, Phone: (717) 787-8550] e:mail: mclabaug@locrscs.LEGIS.STATE.PA.US "The Coming Collision" http://www.fastlane.net/~eca/stwcollision.html Tennessee's experience with STW: http://www.eagleforum.org/~eagle/educate/1997/july97/tn_stw.html Concerns of Parents: http://www.fastlane.net/~eca/stwparents.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: Fwd: SECRET SERVICE REPORTS COCAINE USE IN THE WHITE HOUSE !!! (fwd) Date: 22 Jul 1998 22:24:00 PST On Jul 22, State Citizens Service Center wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Reply-To: APFN@netbox.com Organization: American Patriot Friends Network SECRET SERVICE REPORTS COCAINE USE IN THE WHITE HOUSE !!! If you have Real Audio on your computer, click on this must hear link. KIEV: George Putnam show Jack Cristy segment from the USA Radio Network 5:42 minutes Organization: N/A This is a record of White House pager traffic. Did you know that it was possible to hack into something like this? See Free Republic: http://www.inch.com/%7Eesoteric/pam_suggestion/output.html WOW! hot stuff...... pass it on!!! [------------------------- 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: rkba-list: [announce@lp.org: Release: Legalizing Caesar Salad] (fwd) Date: 24 Jul 1998 09:40:14 PST On Jul 24, Bill Campbell wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I found this amusing :-). Bill -- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc. UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere. -- Robert Heinlein -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- =============================================== NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 =============================================== For release: July 23, 1998 =============================================== For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com =============================================== California decriminalizes Caesar salad and Libertarian Party cheers "victory" WASHINGTON, DC -- California decriminalized the sale of Caesar salad this week -- and it's not a moment too soon, the Libertarian Party said today. "When you outlaw Caesar salad, only outlaws will eat Caesar salad," noted the party's Director of Communications, Bill Winter. "That's why, on the issue of Caesar salad, we Libertarians have always been pro-legalization." Selling Caesar salad became a crime last year when California legislators passed a new health law banning the sale of food that used raw eggs as an ingredient. Unexpectedly, the law included Caesar salad, which uses uncooked eggs in its unique dressing. Restaurant owners and fans of the popular salad were outraged. The outcry convinced state legislators to file a new bill to cancel the criminal status of Caesar salad -- and, presumably, end what might have become a flourishing black market in contraband romaine lettuce, raw eggs, and Parmesan cheese. The bill, signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson on Monday, has Libertarians cheering -- but a little surprised. "We have to compliment California legislators for their rare display of good sense," acknowledged Winter. "Although we're a bit surprised that they were courageous enough to toss the Caesar salad law entirely." Libertarians had expected politicians to take a more timid, gradual approach, said Winter, perhaps... * Implementing a five-day waiting period for Caesar salad, so the government could do a medical background check for raw-egg allergies. * Legalizing only "medical Caesar salad" -- whereby people with a vitamin deficiency could get a doctor's permission to buy a small amount of Caesar salad for their own personal use. * Launching an anti-Caesar salad TV advertising blitz, perhaps with a commercial showing a frying pan, and then showing a frying pan with a raw egg in it. The voice-over could be: "This is your brain. This is your brain on Caesar salad." * Allowing only adults, 21 and over, the right to buy Caesar salad, on the grounds that it may be an adolescent's gateway-salad to stronger stuff, like macaroni salad or three-bean salad. But Libertarians say they are delighted with the bold, unexpected victory over the "Just Say No to Caesar Salad" lobby -- and argue that it's a win for libertarianism and the American way of life. "We support the Constitutional right of every American to keep and bear a Caesar salad -- or, rather, to eat and buy a Caesar salad," said Winter. "All joking aside, it's a setback for those political eggheads who think they have the right to micromanage every aspect of our lives -- down to the type of salad we buy in a restaurant. Hopefully, politicians will learn to just lettuce alone." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNbgIT9CSe1KnQG7RAQGR3gP/U5GzR2hQuiJCiYDboFaPmRYAvpav9aqC ZyyBU0P7HarXsE8Kxg7Mbi2pVGp55tHWYKeCx7FMH5VDD7wOXXzXAgPBjR/gkATf Dfxr0D22vzC9d43abAlUBtQdB6/LjC20CpExfxfUyEsefjBLS03azPJ0YEAIaNB8 mwfDKH6/LrQ= =uHAh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 For subscription changes, please mail to with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form. [------------------------- 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: Here they come again :-/ Date: 24 Jul 1998 14:08:13 PST Word on the Radio is that someone got a pistol past the Capitol Police, and has wounded 5 people over on the Senate side of the White House. THere's an Ambulance on the scene, but so far it doesn't sound like we're going to get lucky on this one, no matter how it turns out. -- ***** 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: Fwd: Judge Orders $100,000 Gun Collection Destroyed Date: 25 Jul 1998 08:02:09 -0400 >Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:29:15 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Judge Orders $100,000 Gun Collection Destroyed > >Source: San Francisco Chronicle >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/1998/07= /24 >/MN2793.DTL > >S.F. Judge Orders Contested $100,000 Gun Collection Destroyed > Owner fought chief of police to return trove from '93 raid=20 > Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer=20 >=20 > Friday, July 24, 1998=20 > > A San Francisco judge yesterday settled the long > feud over the $100,000 gun collection of a > politically connected muffler shop owner, ruling that > the weapons must be destroyed.=20 > > But Superior Court Judge Jack Berman also > rejected the state attorney general's arguments that > Norman Young had intentionally misled the court in > trying to get his guns back after being convicted of > weapons violations.=20 > > The war over the collection had pitted Young, who > owns Discount Muffler on 11th Street, against > Police Chief Fred Lau, who insisted on destroying > the guns.=20 > > ``It was never personal,'' Lau said yesterday. ``The > main thing is we have taken some guns off the street > -- I don't know whether you consider this a win, > lose or draw.''=20 > > Young has a history of involvement in local politics. > He has donated thousands of dollars in recent years > to candidates for mayor and the Board of > Supervisors, and he was an organizer of a > Democratic Party fund-raiser during the 1996 > presidential campaign sponsored by the Lotus > Fund, an Asian American political action > committee.=20 > > Young contributed to District Attorney Terence > Hallinan's 1996 election campaign and donated > $6,500 toward Hallinan's inauguration party.=20 > > Hallinan's office did not take a position in the legal > wrangling, but state Attorney General Dan > Lungren's office filed court papers claiming that > Young was abusing the system.=20 > > The dispute began in 1993 when Young was > arrested and charged with possessing illegal > weapons. A police raid on his home uncovered > more than 100 guns and rifles, a dozen of them > unlicensed and illegal.=20 > > Young was later was found guilty of felony > weapons violations, but in 1994, his conviction was > stayed pending appeal. Berman had ordered the > collection destroyed, but the order was not carried > out because of the appeal.=20 > > Last year, Young petitioned the court and had the > felony charges reduced to misdemeanors, saying he > had fulfilled the terms of his probation. The attorney > general questioned the claim, saying probation had > never been imposed and that Young had misled the > court.=20 > > Meanwhile, Young won permission from Berman > to get his guns back. Lau refused to hand them > over, claiming that Young had not shown a formal > court order.=20 > > Young sued Lau, claiming that officers were firing > off his guns for fun on the police-shooting range. > Young lost.=20 > > Yesterday, Berman ordered the guns destroyed but > also ruled that the muffler shop owner had > complied with all laws -- proof in itself, he said, that > Young had fulfilled his probation sentence.=20 > > The judge rejected a request by Young's attorney > that the guns become a ``Peace Sculpture'' in > Chinatown to commemorate victims of Tiananmen > Square.=20 > > But all in all, attorney Terry Goggin said, Young > considered the ruling ``a great victory.''=20 > > James Quadra, a private attorney who recently left > the city attorney's office, said the ruling ``supports > the city's position all along, that Mr. Young was not > entitled to have these guns returned to him.''=20 > > Of the probation issue, Quadra said, ``I think the > guy skated.''=20 > >=A91998 San Francisco ChroniclePage D8 >--=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 >****************************************************************** >=20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: TIme Gun Poll Reset Date: 25 Jul 1998 22:00:34 PST On Sat, 25 Jul, Doug Fiedor wrote: > Time reset the gun poll they have been >running for the past month. Apparently, they were unhappy >with the real view of the American public. So, let's give >it to them again. Vote early and vote often. > > http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html -- ***** 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 #95 (fwd) Date: 25 Jul 1998 21:57:40 PST On Jul 25, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 26, 1998 #95 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at:=20 http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html TOTALITARIANISM REVISED Remember Checkpoint Charlie? That was the=20 famous =93gate=94 that separated East and West -- free and=20 communist -- Berlin until the Berlin wall came down. It=20 wasn=92t a happy place, to say the least. A person could=20 get themselves arrested there if they did not have their=20 papers in order. Or, if one tried to sneak through, in=20 either direction, they could easily be shot dead. That checkpoint was propagandized throughout=20 the world as a prime example of a totalitarian government=20 run amuck. So, why do we allow somewhat similar=20 checkpoints here in the land of the free and the home of=20 the brave? Members of Congress fly commercial aircraft=20 a lot. They therefore have a personal interest in=20 assuring they will not be inconvenienced in any way while=20 traveling. A bad guy could get on one of their flights=20 and maybe =93do=94 something, they felt. So, they tried to=20 fix it. Nowadays, every commercial air passenger=20 must submit to a search and provide government documents=20 proving who they are. Carry a little extra cash, and the=20 traveler is subject to arrest and the cash confiscated. =20 Carry a personal weapon for self defense, and go directly=20 to jail. Enter an aircraft without properly identifying=20 yourself and men with guns come to take you away. And,=20 if you do not leave willingly, you will be shot. Roadblocks around the country are like that,=20 too. Any police officer can set up a roadblock anywhere=20 they wish. Police may now stop travelers for any reason=20 or for no reason. Americans must stop, show their papers=20 and answer questions. To not stop means instant arrest. =20 Actively protest the arrest and one could be shot. There is even a type of checkpoint for seeking=20 employment nowadays. Employers must now act as police. =20 That is, they are to properly question potential=20 employees, check their government provided documents, and=20 then contact the central government to see if the=20 potential employee is government approved to hold a job in=20 the United States. That came about, of course, because of the=20 negligence of the central government. Our country=92s=20 borders have major holes in which thousands of illegal=20 aliens walk through daily. The central government found=20 it easier to bother all Americans with presenting=20 documentation than to protect our borders. Conversely,=20 instead of allowing the illegal aliens to earn a living,=20 the central government gives them free medical treatment,=20 education and welfare -- at the expense of all legal=20 American citizens. Now we are to have yet another set of official=20 identification numbers and government issued documents for=20 medical treatment. As with commercial Aircraft traveling=20 and motoring down the highway, government will also set=20 up checkpoints and impede the flow of treatment traffic. =20 Already, the central government restricts the ability of=20 senior citizens on Social Security to spend their own=20 money for medical treatment. Seniors who violate this=20 rule can have their assists =93forfeited=94 and will probably=20 be jailed -- and if they protest this violation of freedom=20 too adamantly, can get themselves shot to death. Liberty, as defined in law by Blackstone in=20 the =93Commentaries on the Law,=94 is =93the power of=20 locomotion, of changing situation, of moving one=92s person=20 to whatever place one=92s own inclination may direct,=20 without imprisonment or restraint, unless by course of=20 law.=94 We find this right protected, to a limited extent,=20 within the body of our Constitution, and further=20 guaranteed within the Bill of Rights. Except for=20 emergencies, government has no authority to violate=20 liberty. Our rights to life, liberty and property are=20 said to be =93unalienable=94 rights. That is, they are=20 absolute rights and are incapable of being given up, taken=20 away, or transferred to another. That=92s what the Founding=20 Fathers intended, anyway. (For more in this, visit the=20 first section of that text posted at:=20 http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/state98.htm and=20 http://militia.gen.mi.us/headsup/sou.htm)=20 Yet, we Americans sit by quietly as our=20 freedoms, rights and liberties are snatched one by one by=20 the central government. Apparently, many Americans truly=20 believe that the expediency of government agents really=20 does supersede the freedom of the people. As long as the=20 sports games are played on schedule and there=92s food in=20 the refrigerator we don=92t seem to notice our rights evaporating. Soon our driver=92s licenses, Social Security=20 tax number, government approved medical treatment=20 authority & identification, credit cards, and work permits=20 will be on one central government provided internal=20 passport. That will make it most convenient for=20 bureaucrats. For any real or suspected violation of any=20 law rule or regulation, they will then have the ability to=20 instantly cancel most human functions with one change of=20 their computer=92s database. Checkpoint Charley was little more than an=20 historical photo opportunity on the road to totalitarianism. =20 Congress is giving modern bureaucrats in the United States=20 potential for the real thing. Do you have your papers in order? GOVERNMENT DISOBEDIENCE What do you do when the people working for=20 you refuse to follow their job description and then lie=20 about it? You have that problem now you know. We all do. =20 Our public servants are disobedient. Pick any part of the Constitution -- the very=20 first line, for example: =93All legislative Powers shall be=20 vested in a Congress. . . .=94 There is nothing very=20 difficult to understand about that statement. =93All=94 means=20 every bit. =93Legislative Powers=94 means to make law. And=20 =93shall=94 means that is how it is to be done. Written another way, Congress shall make all=20 law. In this case, =93law=94 being that body of rules and=20 principles governing the affairs of a community and=20 enforced by a political authority. It would be a violation of the very first=20 sentence of our Constitution, then, if any department of=20 government other than Congress promulgates =93rules and=20 principles=94 which are =93enforced by a political authority=94=20 over the people of the United States. Yet all of the=20 regulatory agencies regularly pass rules and regulations=20 having the full force of law. Even the president=20 sometimes makes law via executive order. Do we believe in our Constitutional way of=20 government, or shall we continue to stand by silently and=20 accept willful disobedience by our public servants? The Social-Democrats among us would have=20 us believe that our Constitution is a living document,=20 that the meaning of the words change with circumstances=20 over time, and that a strict interpretation would be=20 overly restrictive to government. Last week, while=20 substituting for Rush Limbaugh on the radio, Professor of=20 Economics Walter Williams cut right through that baloney=20 with one short sentence: =93How would you like to play=20 poker with living rules?=94 Our Constitution is a contract between the=20 States and the federal government. It was approved by=20 the people, through the sovereign States for those=20 purposes, and only those purposes, set down in the=20 contract. We call those purposes =93enumerated=94 powers. =20 But they are also contractual duties. Two of the most important functions of the=20 federal government are to protect the integrity of the=20 nation as a whole and the rights of the American people. =20 The Preamble to the Constitution even mentions these=20 functions: =93provide for the common defence=94 and =93secure=20 the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.=94 One of the duties of the federal government,=20 then, is to guard our borders against invasion. Yet, each=20 day thousands of foreigners are allowed to sneak into the=20 United States. Some states now have millions of illegal=20 foreign residents, but the federal government does nothing=20 to round them up and send them back. Instead of=20 protecting our borders, and keeping out illegal aliens,=20 the federal government placed tracking restrictions on all=20 American citizens that are both obnoxious and=20 unconstitutional. This is total disobedience of both the=20 written word and the intent of the Constitution. Another problem is the tons of illegal drugs=20 freely entering the United States from other countries. =20 The federal budget allocations for drug interdiction=20 dropped from 33 percent to 12 percent of the total illegal=20 drug fighting budget under the Clinton Administration. =20 As interdiction decreased, the street price of illegal=20 drugs decreased and illegal drug use by teenagers=20 drastically increased. Yet, instead of halting the flow of illegal=20 drugs into our country and drying up the market, the=20 federal government imposed hundreds of unconstitutional=20 and oppressive laws, rules and regulations on law-abiding=20 American people. This, too, is disobedience to both the=20 words and intent of our Constitution. Today, there are over 170,000 federal=20 bureaucrats spending over $17-billion a year. Their only=20 function in life is to control the actions of the American=20 people. The demands of this regulatory bureaucracy=20 currently cost the average American family approximately=20 $7,000 a year in stealth taxes. Yet, few if any of the=20 activities regulated by the federal regulatory bureaucracy=20 are authorized to the federal government by the=20 Constitution. Again, willful disobedience. The First Amendment clearly states that=20 =93Congress shall make no law=94 regarding religion, speech,=20 press, assembly, or to petition government. Yet, the=20 federal government disobeyed the Constitution and passed=20 laws restricting everything except the press. The Second=20 Amendment states that =93the right of the people to keep and=20 bear arms, shall not be infringed.=94 The federal=20 government disobeyed that, too, by passing dozens of=20 restrictions on personal arms. The Fourth Amendment, protecting our right=20 to privacy and to be secure in our =93persons, homes,=20 papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and=20 seizures,=94 has been totally trashed in recent years. The=20 director of the FBI even wants legislation passed=20 prohibiting Americans from putting an envelope=20 (encryption) on their personal e-mail messages. =20 Forfeiture and warrantless searches are total disobedience=20 to the Constitution. Yet, we Americans are learning to=20 accept this unconstitutional behavior by public servants=20 as normal. It=92s time we the sovereign citizens of these=20 United States join together to exert our rightful position=20 over these wayward public servants. Because, if we fail=20 in correcting these ills in government, we will be=20 committing a major disservice to our grandchildren:=20 committing them to living their lives in what is quickly=20 developing into a highly regulated dictatorship. FLEETING FREEDOM Sometimes it does one good to admit to one=92s=20 indiscretions. And, being one who would never be mistaken=20 for a saint, I=92ve had a few. For instance, every so often=20 I like to mosey down the old highway to the local town=92s=20 greasy spoon and have lunch with a group of old timer=20 yellow-dog Democrats. These senior citizens may be the quintessential=20 yellow-dogs, but it=92s not a good idea to mistake them for=20 Social-Democrats. Even hinting that one of these old=20 timers is a socialist could easily get one knocked into=20 the prone position. They, of course, know that I am not a yellow- dog, and most of them have even read this publication from=20 time to time. So it=92s interesting in itself that, with a=20 twinkle in their eyes and a nod of their heads, a couple=20 of them always invite me over to join them for a little=20 political banter while we eat. As they started on their list of real and=20 perceived offenses by Newt and the boys in Congress, I=20 tossed them a curve ball. =93What are some of the=20 differences between now and when you were young and just=20 married,=94 I asked. =93And, I=92m talking political stuff now. =20 Like the differences in freedom of the people.=94 Unbeknownst to me, that question hit a raw=20 nerve. I soon noticed that I had caused quite a bit of=20 agitation, and probably a little bit of indigestion,=20 around the table. =93My tobacco allotment is down to 10% of what=20 it was,=94 one farmer said disgustedly. =93They have things=20 so screwed up a man can=92t even make an honest living=20 anymore.=94 =93I saved all my life to have a good retirement,=94=20 another said. =93Now some (expletive deleted) tells me that=20 I MUST accept whatever medical treatment the government=20 thinks I should have. They told me it=92s against the law=20 for me to use my own money pay a doctor.=94 That statement caused a bit of heated discussion=20 around the table, and it was soon very evident to everyone=20 in the restaurant that none of these old-timers agreed=20 with that action by government. =93They searched my bags when we went out to=20 (see his son in) California,=94 one man said about his=20 second ever commercial air flight. =93Just like I was a=20 common criminal, or something. Looked through everything=20 we had.=94 =93I was thinking about all the rules and=20 regulations nowadays,=94 I said. =93There weren=92t any regulations 50 or 60 years=20 ago,=94 one man said. =93A man did what he wanted. Just so=20 long as you didn=92t bother the neighbors, a man could do=20 just about anything he wanted.=94 =93We had restrictions under Roosevelt,=94 one farmer said. =93Yeah, but who followed them?=94 another man=20 laughed, with nods of agreement and chuckles all around.=20 =93Government men didn=92t visit these parts. They had bigger=20 fish to check on. We had revenuers once in a while, but=20 they didn=92t like to come here.=94 The conversation digressed from there, sticking=20 mostly to local and State issues. But it was clear that=20 these senior gentlemen recognized some very real changes=20 in the amount of freedom allowed the people, and they were=20 not happy about those changes. And so it is throughout the country with=20 groups of senior citizens. Get them talking a while and=20 all too often they=92ll prefix a statement with something=20 like, =93I remember when we could. . . .=94 This presents a problem many of us who are=20 over 50 years old are noticing on the Internet. There is=20 a lot of talk about the misdeeds of government, about=20 freedom, rights and liberty. The problem is that America=20 is quickly losing its institutional memory for freedom. =20 It has been over sixty years since Roosevelt started=20 corrupting the federal government -- removing personal=20 and State=92s rights and putting federal agencies in control=20 of everything. Few Americans remember =93how it was=94=20 when we had true freedom. And herein lies the shame of it all: Here in=20 the land of the free and the home of the brave, only about=20 ten percent of us can remember how it was to be free. We=20 Americans have learned to accept womb to tomb regulation=20 of everything in our lives as being the duty of government. =20 Perhaps it=92s time we all lunch with some old timers and=20 query them on what this freedom thing was actually all=20 about when applied to real everyday life. THIRD WAY NOT THE AMERICAN WAY Back in March, British Prime Minister Tony=20 Blair addressed the French National Assembly in Paris=20 concerning his ideas for the proper approach to economy,=20 jobs and social policy in the new European Union. The=20 Prime Minister called for the abandonment of old=20 ideologies as governments respond to a rapidly changing=20 world. There is no such thing as Left or Right in=20 economic management any more, only good or bad, he said. =20 Blair then challenged the French and other European=20 governments to adopt the =93Third Way=94 of government. Blair emphasized the need for basic conditions=20 for workers, but also said that job security comes through=20 workers having skills rather than through regulating the=20 job market. He believes that governments should play an=20 active role in improving the employability of their=20 workforces. Blair also warned that there can be no return=20 to 1950s values, but called for a strengthening of family=20 and community life: =93We need to fashion some order among=20 the disintegration. People want a society free from=20 prejudice but not from rules.=94 Downing Street billed the address as =93the most=20 complete statement of the Prime Minister=92s personal creed=20 since the election.=94=20 Another of the =93Third Way=94 leaders is Gerhard=20 Schroder, candidate for Chancellor of Germany -- currently=20 with a 16 point lead over sitting Chancellor Helmut Kohl. =20 In the July 20 edition of Time Magazine, Jordan Bonfante=20 writes from Bonn in part: =93As the latest member in the growing ranks of=20 so-called Third Way leaders, Schroder hopes to emulate the=20 success of left-of-center politicians like Bill Clinton=20 and Tony Blair, who won office by scrapping traditional=20 big-spending, big-government ideologies in favor of the=20 free-market solutions advocated by their right-leaning=20 rivals. =93Wary of what he calls =91philosophical=20 catchwords,=92 Schroder does not refer explicitly to the=20 Third Way. The phrase seems to mean not simply a=20 compromise between right and left but a synthesis of=20 fiscal conservatism with social responsibility that can=20 appeal across a broad middle. Schroder recognizes the=20 idea in the rise of a like-minded international fraternity. =20 =91There's a mainstream of modern social democratic=20 thinking, trying to find answers to the new questions=20 arising from globalization,=92 he says. =91The main question=20 is balance: how to modernize the society and modernize=20 the economy and have social security -- how to keep that=20 balance.=92=94 Closer to home, The New York Times reports: =20 =93This month Mrs. Clinton convened and presided over the=20 first of what is expected to be several meetings at the=20 White House at which prominent Democratic thinkers=20 discuss ways of finding common ground on issues like=20 trade, education and Social Security.=94 Sidney Blumenthal, the Times reported,=20 organized the meeting but declined to discuss the=20 immediate political implications. =93This was a step in the=20 long-term development of a new progressive politics in=20 America that has been begun by the president,=94 Blumenthal=20 said. =93And it reflects that the center of political and=20 intellectual vitality lies here in what we call =91the third=20 way=92.=94=20 The New York Times reports that the =93third=20 way=94 strategy, as championed by Clinton and Prime Minister=20 Tony Blair of Britain, is founded on the notion that=20 political parties should not feel limited to the=20 traditional right or left approach to governing. That is=20 certainly part of the story, but little more than the tip=20 of the old iceberg. The Third Way, as taught to Rhodes Scholars=20 at Oxford University, and now at Harvard University=20 School of Government, is a bit more ominous than what us=20 serf-citizens are being told. The Third Way (not to be=20 confused with the British political party) is actually a=20 blend of the best of communism and the best of capitalism. =20 Well, that=92s what Third Way proponents say, anyway, when=20 they will answer. Actually, in a third way society, the people=20 are trained to support industry (structured school to work=20 programs). Also, unlike in a strictly communist society,=20 property ownership is acceptable under the Third Way=20 doctrine. However, everything applicable to the=20 citizens -- the workers -- is to be highly regulated and=20 standardized. In other words, the elite get the freedom=20 and the workers get controlled. Needless to say, the Third Way is far afield=20 from the =93American Way.=94 But, due to the control freaks=20 presently running the central government, this =93Third Way=94=20 is quickly coming our way. This is a world wide movement on which we=20 will continue reporting as information materializes. For=20 more information see Heads Up issues #62 (December 7),=20 #63 (December 14) and #72 (February 5). -- End=20 Time reset the =93gun poll=94 they have been=20 running for the past month. Apparently, they were unhappy=20 with the real view of the American public. So, let=92s give=20 it to them again. Vote early and vote often. http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html=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 ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AdvAM: This Guy's GOT to Be Kidding! (fwd) Date: 25 Jul 1998 22:54:27 PST On Jul 25, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network (c) 1998 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article for NON-PROFIT purposes. Profit-making publications must have *express consent* to reprint any AdvAM/AdvAK materials. Thank you. ================================================================ DID THIS JUDGE SAY WHAT I THOUGHT HE SAID!? Imagine a statute of limitations on unconstitutional legislation. Suppose Congress or a state legislature could pass a law that is blatantly at odds with what the Constitution clearly states are the limits of its powers. Suppose at the time the law is passed you grumble but shrug it off, not really aware of its potential. Suppose many years later the Gummint decides to test the scope of this law and starts infringing radically on the rights of citizens. And suppose you realize only then that there may be a difference between what this law says the Gummint can do, and what the Constitution says the Gummint can do. So you sue. You petition the court to stop the Gummint from doing what it says the law lets it do. You argue (or TRY to argue) that if the law lets the Gummint do these things that the Constitution forbids, then the law is unconstitutional and must be struck down. And then suppose the judge tells you you're too late. You should have sued to strike down this unconstitutional law within six years after it was enacted, he says. Since you didn't, the law is constitutional, he says. Imagine a statute of limitations on unconstitutional legislation. That, according to a news report in the *Fairbanks Daily News-Miner* today, is precisely what U.S. District Court judge James Robertson did in a suit challenging the U.S. Department of the Interior's attempt to take over management of Alaska's freshwater fisheries under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The report reads: "Robertson found that any question about ANILCA's constitutionality should have come within six years of the law's passage." The ruling will most assuredly be appealed. Time limits on constitutionality challenges cannot be tolerated. Outrageous! -30- July 25, 1998 ================================================================ **Visit the AdvAM/AdvAK archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/advance.htm The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. [------------------------- 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: Pending Craig-Murkowski Puerto Rico statehood bill--7 (fwd) Date: 25 Jul 1998 22:56:21 PST On Jul 26, wh.clark wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] URGENT ACT NOW! Weldon Clark ---------- Cc: 'Sandern@imagin.net'; 'MoJhnstn@aol.com'; 'wh.clark@mci2000.com'; 'alanallen-scot@worldnet.att.net' moreguncontrol votes in House, 2 in Senate--Calls Needed Now ---------- Sent: Saturday, July 25, 1998 5:47 PM Cc: Leroy Pyle; Joseph Tartaro; "Chris Knox" "Weldon Clark"; Albert Ross; Sandy Crosnoe; Susan Fiol guncontrol votes in House, 2 in Senate-Calls Needed Now The Puerto Rico statehood bill pending in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources means 7 more anti-gunners in the House and two more in the Senate. The Committee could take up this bill as early as Wednesday, July 29th. There are three parts to this alert: (1) A letter from Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America delivered to Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) opposing the bill. (2) A short blurb on what you and your group can do with names addresses and sample text for Committee members. (3) A fact sheet on Puerto Rico's murder rates and gun control laws prepared by English First. Thank you for doing what you can. Please feel free to copy and redistribute this alert. Jim Boulet, Jr. Executive Director English First jboulet@englishfirst.org (1) Letter from Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America to Senator Craig on Puerto Rico Statehood July 24, 1998 The Honorable Larry Craig United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Senator Craig, As one gun rights activist to another, I am deeply concerned about your reported efforts to promote pro-statehood legislation for Puerto Rico. As a state, Puerto Rico would have six or seven Congressmen and two Senators, all representing an island where a government license is required to purchase or reload ammunition, let alone to possess a firearm. I've attached a summary of their gun laws, taken from the NRA. Despite these strict gun control laws, Puerto Rico has a murder rate double that of New York City and three times the national average. Puerto Rico's Congressional delegation, whether Republicans or Democrats, is quite likely to be determined advocates of more gun control. You and I have both seen how much damage just one Senator can do to our Second Amendment rights, as Senators Lautenberg and Durbin are demonstrating right now. Second Amendment votes are notoriously close and hard fought. The semi-auto ban was decided by a margin of just 216-214 in the House and by a handful of votes in the Senate. Puerto Rico statehood not only means seven more anti-gun votes in the House and two more in the Senate, but given the mood of some supporters of independence for the island, additional acts of terrorism on the mainland. One senseless tragedy is often enough to spark Congress to repeal more of the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. Puerto Rico statehood is a great danger to our right to bear arms. I urge you to vote against any efforts to resurrect S.472/H.R.856/the Murkowski substitute in the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Sincerely, Larry Pratt Executive Director (2) Other Pro-gun leaders can do two things. First, English First is organizing a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. If you would like to add your name and the name of your group (for identification purposes only), contact Jim Boulet or Frank Pejack at (703) 321-8818 or fax your signature, name, title and group to (703) 321-8408. Second, enough calls, faxes and telegrams into the offices of Energy and Natural Resources Committee members could keep this bad bill off the Senate floor. Available voice, fax and e-mail addresses for each committee member are printed below. Committee Members (Republicans) Frank Murkowski (R-AK) (202) 224-6665 (voice) (202) 224-5301 (fax) email@Murkowski.senate.gov (e-mail) Pete Domenici (R-NM) (202) 224-6621 (v) senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov Don Nickles (R-OK) (202) 224-5754 (v) (202) 224-6008 (f) senator@nickles.senate.gov Larry Craig (R-ID) (202) 224-2752 (v) (202) 228-1067 (f) larry_craig@craig.senate.gov Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) (202) 224-5852 (v) (202) 224-1933 (f) Craig Thomas (R-WY) (202) 224-6441 (v) (202) 224-1724 (f) craig@thomas.senate.gov John Kyl (R-AZ) 202-224-4521 (v) 202-228-1239 (f) info@kyl.senate.gov Rod Grams (R-MN) (202) 224-3244 (v) (202) 228-0956 (f) mail_grams@grams.senate.gov Gordon Smith (R-OR) (202) 224-3753 (v) (202) 228-3997 (f) oregon@gsmith.senate.gov Slade Gorton (R-WA) (202) 224-3441 (v) (202) 224-9393 (f) senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov Conrad Burns (R-MT) (202) 224-2644 (v) (202) 224-8594 (f) conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov (Democrats) Dale Bumpers (D-Arkansas) (202) 224-4843 (v) senator@bumpers.senate.gov Wendell Ford (D-KY) (202) 224-4343 (v) wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) (202) 224-5521 (v) seantor_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov Daniel Akaka (D-HI) (202) 224-6361 (v) (202) 224-2126 (f) Byron Dorgan (D-ND) (202) 224-2551 (v) (202) 224-1193 (f) senator@dorgan.senate.gov Bob Graham (D-FL) (202) 224-3041 (v) bob_graham@graham.senate.gov Ron Wyden (D-OR) (202) 224 -5244 (v) (202) 228-2717 (f) senator@wyden.senate.gov Tim Johnson (D-SD) (202) 224-5842 (202) 228-5765 (f) tim@johnson.senate.gov Mary Landrieu (D-LA) (202) 224-5824 (v) (202) 224-9735 (f) senator@landrieu.senate.gov You can also call your two Senators directly by dialing the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Your fax or e-mail might say: With all the problems in this country, what is the hurry about Puerto Rico? There are many questions about admitting a Spanish-speaking nation-state with high unemployment, high welfare use and a terrible crime problem. Haste makes waste. Given the costs of Puerto Rico statehood, I say America can't afford its own Quebec. Please do not bring either of these bad Puerto Rico statehood bills (H.R. 856 and/or S.472) out of committee. The Senate has more important things to vote on like (insert your favorite issue here). (3) English First Alert on Puerto Rico and Gun Control Puerto Rico: High Murder Rates and Strict Gun Control Laws A state of Puerto Rico would be entitled to two Senators and six or seven Congressmen. It would be America's 25th largest state. Crime United States Murder Rate (1996): 7.4 per 100,000 New York City Murder Rate (1996): 12.0 per 100,000 Puerto Rico Murder Rate (1996): 25.0 per 100,000. Rank of Puerto Rico if included among states based on 1996 murder rates: 6th. Puerto Rico's Current Gun Control Laws (source, NRA-ILA http://www.nra.org/gun-laws/prsl.htm) A government license is required to possess almost any firearm. A person who "has or possesses any pistol, revolver, or other firearm without having a license therefor" is guilty of a misdemeanor for a first offense, a felony for subsequent offenses. [Title 25; Chapter 51. Weapons. Section 416 There may be an exception for "hunting and target shooting arms" [Section 445]]. The government's permission must be sought prior to the purchase of a firearm. No dealer in firearms or ammunition shall deliver a firearm or issue the corresponding delivery permit to a purchaser without the latter's handing over to him a license to have and possess a firearm, duly issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, or a hunter's, shooter's or other kind of license authorizing him, pursuant to law, to possess a firearm, and unless said license contains an authorization for the purchase of said weapon, and said dealer shall not sell to such purchaser any weapon other than the one described in said license [Section 438]. A firearms license is required to purchase or reload ammunition. Ammunition shall not be manufactured, caused to be manufactured, or imported, offered, sold, lent or transferred unless a license is held therefor . . . [Section 412]. No dealer in firearms or ammunition shall sell any quantity of ammunition to any person failing to present a license to carry, or a license to have or possess a firearm [Section 438]. Ammunition sales are individually registered. A record in triplicate shall be kept of each firearm sold and of each sale of ammunition, in books devoted to this purpose which shall be printed In the manner that may be prescribed by the Superintendent of Police of Puerto Rico and the record of each sale shall be personally signed by the buyer and by the person making the sale, each in the presence of the other; and such record shall set forth the date, day and time of the sale, caliber, make, model and factory number of the weapon, caliber, brand and quantity of ammunition, the name, birthplace, address, occupation and civil status of the buyer [Section 436 (5)]. What You Can Do to Stop Puerto Rico Statehood You can send telegrams to your two Senators and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott opposing Puerto Rico statehood by calling toll-free: 1-888-888-0089 There will be a charge of $8.50 applied to your telephone bill. (The entire charge goes to Western Union.) Those who are not already members of English First will get a free six-month subscription to our newsletter and legislative alerts (a $10 value). Prepared by English First, 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703) 321-8818 (v) http://www.englishfirst.org _____________ You can receive your own copy of this e-mail for free. Contact jboulet@englishfirst.org. ---------- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fw: D.C. Shooting - Worthless "Gun Control" laws FAIL AGAIN (fwd) Date: 26 Jul 1998 16:10:09 PST On Jul 26, Terry Walker wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] -----Original Message----- > ****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 > > 07/25/98 > -------- > > > D.C. Shooting - Worthless "Gun Control" laws FAIL AGAIN > > by Richard Stevens > JPFO Firearms Sentinel Editor > > > Charging through a metal detector and shooting two Capitol >police officers, a killer invaded the Capitol building on Friday >afternoon, July 24, 1998, with apparent intent to harm a political >leader in the building. As the killer used a firearm to kill the >officers, we can expect renewed calls for more "gun control." >Defenders of the right to keep and bear arms must be ready. > > This particular murderous attack teaches some valuable >lessons. First, the attack demonstrated that "gun control" laws >do not prevent crime. The attacker carried a concealed firearm >in a federal building in Washington, D.C. and later discharged >it there. He therefore violated several federal and local (D.C.) >firearms laws, as well as laws against assault, battery, and >homicide. The laws did not stop a determined killer. > > Second, the attack showed how important it is to have an >armed defense against aggressors. The Capitol attacker was able >to kill and injure far fewer persons than did the young teenage >school boys in Jonesboro. What was the difference? The Capitol >attacker charged into a building where the defenders were armed. >The Jonesboro killers fired on unarmed and undefended victims. >Go to http://www.jpfo.org/gckids.htm >Go to http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm > > After killing several persons and injuring dozens more, >the Jonesboro killers escaped without injury to themselves. The >Capitol attacker, however, was injured when one of his victims >(before dying) shot back. The Jonesboro school victims died >undefended. The Capitol attacker's intended victim (as yet >unknown), was defended and suffered no injury whatsoever. > > Third, the Capitol attack proved again that the mere >presence of armed police and metal detectors will not deter >some aggressors. Some particularly dedicated, fanatical, or >psychotic killers will attack innocent people, regardless of >the risks of criminal prosecution or death. These killers can >only be stopped by superior force, and sometimes even the >police cannot deploy sufficient force to prevent all injuries >and deaths. > > If police officers cannot guarantee protection even to >themselves in a well-defended Capitol building, then they >surely cannot guarantee protection to ordinary citizens in >ordinary homes. The police owe no legal duty to protect >individual citizens; their job is only to protect society >in general. If you face a threat of attack by a deranged >and murderous aggressor, then trading your gun for a >telephone to dial "9-1-1" is to surrender to the killer. >Go to http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm > > JPFO mourns the deaths of the two Capitol police officers >who died in the line of duty. They gave up their lives to >defend innocent people against a murderous attacker. No more >noble sacrifice of life is possible. JPFO offers its heartfelt >condolences to the families of those officers, who themselves >will suffer their personal loss forever. > > Words and feelings cannot reverse the officers' families' >pain and suffering. The "gun control" lobby, however, will likely >use this incident to launch a campaign to disarm and thereby leave >completely defenseless other innocent persons. Don't allow the gun >prohibition rhetoric to go unchallenged -- answer the newspaper >editorials in your town, and call into talk shows. You could save >a life -- possibly your own. > >-------------------- > >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." > "If you don't support JPFO, then WHY support ANYONE?" >**************************************************************** >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". >**************************************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: Second Amendment Sources (fwd) Date: 26 Jul 1998 20:16:59 PST On Jul 26, Mike Riddle wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== (PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS) I now have a fairly thorough list of Second Amendment-related historical sources -- constitutional provisions and proposals, 1800s treatises, cases, and statutes -- at It's still a work in progress, but I think it's basically sound enough to release to the world. Please feel free to forward this message, to link to the page, and to excerpt the materials from it. For those who don't have easy one-click access to the Web, here's the table of contents so you can get a sense of what's available: I. Text of the Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions III. "The Right of the People" in Other Bill of Rights Provisions IV. Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure V. 18th- and 19th-Century Commentary A. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) B. St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803) C. Joseph Story, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840) D. Thomas Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law (1898) VI. Supreme Court Cases A. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) B. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857) C. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876) D. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886) E. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 286-87 (1892) F. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894) G. Dissent in Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 635 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting) H. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) I. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900) J. Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 528 (1905) K. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908) L. Dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 78 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting) M. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950) (Jackson, J., for the majority) N. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378 n.5 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., for the majority) O. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49 & n.10 (1961) (Harlan, J., for the majority) P. Dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-51 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Marshall, J.) Q. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980) R. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) S. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992) (dictum) T. Concurrence in Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 2385-86 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring) U. Dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1921 (1998) (Ginburg, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Souter, JJ.) VII. Relevant tatutes A. Militia Act of 1792 B. The currently effective Militia Act Eugene Volokh Acting Professor UCLA Law School ===================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: Paul M Watson Subject: "Saving Private Ryan" a movie about the D-day invasion Date: 27 Jul 1998 08:43:48 -0500 (CDT) If you have not seen this movie, go as soon as you can. You need to see it in one of the newer theaters with stadium seating digital sound and curved screen for the full effect. I saw a History channel review with two men, one who earned the medal of honor, who survived the D-day at Normandy invasion. Both said this was the best ever movie depicting war ever made, and so did 2 history professors.=20 I went with my father who was a B17 wing commander Lt Co with the 381st who bombed the shore that morning. He told me his bombardier and navigator had made a last second call to delay dropping bombs a few seconds because the coast had low cloud/fog covering it and they were afraid they would hit our troups. When they dropped they hit behind the targets and left many of the German gun implacements intact. I forgot that the B17 pilots gave control of the plane to the bombardier who fly the plane by way of the bomb sight. They did not have time to ask him and made thier own call.= =20 He said he always wondered what he would have done if given the chance to decide. I said well given all your experience at the time what do you think you would have done? He replied, stay with the mission and drop on target. All of his planes and the others did the same thing. The medal of honor veteran said he blamed the airforce for the huge loss of life on the beach and my father carries a lot of guilt for this. My dad flew over the Battle ship Texas and could see her sliding sideways as she fired her 16"= =20 guns. He could see the shells flying in the air and exploding on the land. My dad, and mentor gun lover, said this was the most accurate portrayal of military guns he had ever seen. He said he paid close attention to the kind, use and effectiveness of the guns used and he was most impressed with how good a job the movie did.=20 This is not a movie for your date or young children, it is graphic violence at its worse. It is a gripping, emotional tribute to all the veterans of WWII. At the end of the movie I was emotionally drained, all I could do was manage a strong hug for my dad as we left. Regards, Paul Watson, Plano Texas ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Yahoo! Movies =20 Saving Private Ryan =20 Rating: R intense prolonged realistically graphic sequences of war violence, and for language =20 Release Schedule: July 24, 1998 =20 Synopsis: In the midst of World War II, a mother receives letters that three of her four sons have been killed in battle. Tom Hanks is the Army captain tasked to lead seven men into occupied territory to save her remaining son, played by "Good Will Hunting's" Matt Damon. Among Hanks' company are Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns and Jeremy Davies. =20 Cast and Credits: Starring: Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Matt Damon, Jeremy Davies, Vin Diesel, Adam Goldberg, Barry Pepper and Giovanni Ribisi =20 Directed by Steven Spielberg. Written by Frank Darabont and Robert Rodat. Produced by Ian Bryce, Mark Gordon, Gary Levinsohn and Steven Spielberg. Released by DreamWorks S.K.G. and Paramount. =20 Play the Trailer: =B7 Quicktime...from Hollywood Online =20 _________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: "Saving Private Ryan" a movie about the D-day invasion Date: 27 Jul 1998 22:34:06 -0500 At 08:43 AM 7/27/98 -0500, Paul M Watson wrote: >Posted to texas-gun-owners by Paul M Watson >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >If you have not seen this movie, go as soon as you can. You need to see >it in one of the newer theaters with stadium seating digital sound and >curved screen for the full effect. I saw a History channel review with >two men, one who earned the medal of honor, who survived the D-day at >Normandy invasion. Both said this was the best ever movie depicting war >ever made, and so did 2 history professors. I second, third or whatever the opinion. I was all choked up *before* the 20 minutes of gore. Interestingly, I took in a 13:50 matinee, yet the theater was packed. Additionally the crowd was middle aged and beyond for the most part. Never saw so much grey hair in a theatre in my life. However few of the men looked old enought to be of the WWII generation, although quite a few women did. Women with no male escort. A couple of the women looked old enough to have been mothers with military sons during WWII. Cudos to Tom Hanks and Spielberg. >My dad, and mentor gun lover, said this was the most accurate portrayal of >military guns he had ever seen. He said he paid close attention to the >kind, use and effectiveness of the guns used and he was most impressed >with how good a job the movie did. I noticed that too. Only critisim was that during some of the close ups of troops fireing the M-1, the gun did not appear to recoil. Wimpy actors? They certainly could have shot the close ups with them fireing live ammo into a backstop or other bullet trap. > >This is not a movie for your date or young children, it is graphic >violence at its worse. It is a gripping, emotional tribute to all the >veterans of WWII. At the end of the movie I was emotionally drained, all I >could do was manage a strong hug for my dad as we left. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Moseley-Braun: A chance to bury gun control (fwd) Date: 28 Jul 1998 14:15:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- OK, folks, here it is. A controversial incumbent with a narrow lead who is basing her campaign on gun control. If she wins, the anti-gunners will take it as a "sign" that the people want more gun control. But if she loses, gun control will become "last year's issue" and lose a lot of political lustre. This is a _Senate_ race, much higher visibility than the House. It doesn't matter what issue disqualifies her. If she loses because of her finance scandal, fine. She has made gun control her central theme, and that central theme will sink or swim with her. We have a real opportunity here - let's do what we can. ----- Ill. Sen. Pushes Gun Control Theme By MIKE ROBINSON Associated Press Writer CHICAGO (AP) -- Hours after a gunman's deadly rampage through the Capitol, Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun warned that the nation ``is awash in a sea of handguns.'' ``We must keep guns out of the hands of felons and mental cases and children,'' the Senate's first black woman told a hastily assembled battery of Chicago television cameras. Gun control is Moseley-Braun's constant theme these days as she seeks a second term. Her chances for victory depend in part on whether that issue carries more weight with voters than questions about her campaign spending, a mysterious former fiance and a visit with one of Africa's most notorious dictators. Her Republican challenger, millionaire Peter Fitzgerald, barely trailed in the latest poll. If he wins, it would be the Illinois GOP's first victory in a Senate race since Charles Percy won in 1978. But gun control has proven popular in this middle-of-the-road state, and the conservative Fitzgerald wants to legalize carrying concealed weapons -- a proposal Moseley-Braun denounces at every opportunity. ``To suggest that someone sitting next to you should have a gun in his pocket or her purse without you knowing it -- hidden handguns -- borders on the irresponsible,'' she said. The 50-year-old Moseley-Braun's six years on Capitol Hill have been a roller coaster ride of controversy. Most recently, the Justice Department confirmed that the Internal Revenue Service in 1995 twice asked for federal grand jury investigations of spending during her 1992 campaign. The latest Copley News Service poll found Moseley-Braun with 46 percent to Fitzgerald's 42 percent. The poll of 807 voters this month by Mason-Dixon Political Media Research had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. The poll was taken before word of the grand jury requests became public. Illinois most often elects candidates who, like Moseley-Braun, support legal abortion. Democrats hope Fitzgerald's strong opposition to abortion will limit his support, especially among women. Independent women voters were crucial and gun control was a central issue when Democrat Dick Durbin beat conservative Republican Al Salvi in Illinois' 1996 Senate race. But Fitzgerald says legalizing concealed weapons isn't radical -- more than 30 states allow it. Fitzgerald wouldn't allow anyone to get a concealed-carry permit without 50 hours of training. ' - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: FLASH!: Hearthside Special Date: 28 Jul 1998 17:41:55 -0400 >From: "Hearthside Family Publications" >To: "Our friends at Hearthside"hearth@hancock.net >Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:07:18 +0000 >X-Distribution: Moderate >Subject: FLASH!: Hearthside Special >Reply-to: hearth@hancock.net >Priority: normal > > >EO13083 Still on the Fast Track > >The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee is wrapping up a >meeting on EO13083, "Federalism," as I write. > >There is considerable bi-partisan resistance being expressed, and it >was indicated by Congressman Bob Barr that in spite of the >president's reported statements in the Washington Post that he was >"postponing" implementation of EO13083, that is *not* in fact >happening. > >Congressman Barr (and others) also discussed a Bill to reinstate the >existing EO on Federalism, from Reagan's administration, as an act of >Congress. > >In order for Clinton to "undo" or "postpone" an Executive Order, he >must issue another Executive Order, and that has *not* been done. >Once again, our sitting president has lied, and his plans for a >Federal sovereignty are still under way. > >EO13083 is STILL ON THE FAST TRACK, folks. Call your State >Legislators and Congressmen *NOW*. Unless something is done >immediately, EO13083 becomes law on, or about, August 13. > >Dave Delany >--- > "Liberty Begins at Hearthside" >Copyright: Hearthside Family Publications > PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 > http://www.hancock.net/~freedom > * * * * * > Free! > ><> To Subscribe (or unsubscribe) > Send request to hearth@hancock.net > and ask about Hearth Tabs: >regular doses of historical perspective! > Free! > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fwd: New Capitol 800 Number] (fwd) Date: 28 Jul 1998 21:46:01 PST On Jul 28, larry ball wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] For your info.. Bruce Simon 1-800-361-5222: In order to make this number work, you must punch in a zip code from the district of the House Member you are calling or the area code for the Senator you are calling. Then a computer will automatically connect you to the office. You do NOT get connected to the Capitol Switchboard. HOWEVER, if the zip code 90001 is entered, the Capitol Switchboard will answer and one can then ask for ANY Member's office. This number is brought to us compliments of the AARP. [------------------------- 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: Two web sites (fwd) Date: 28 Jul 1998 22:08:47 PST On Jul 28, ataylor@nmsu.edu wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Both sites are very interesting. THe first is the Australian site. This site is excellent. It's also alarming as all get out. Some of the proposals regarding "microdisarmament" being pushed in the UN by the Japanese, Canadian and Australian governments are "supported" by text from Australia. Persons who have been participants on talk.politics.guns will recognize some of the usual international suspects referenced by the Aussie government, such as Martin Killias. The Aussie shooting sports association web page is located at: http://www.ssaa.org.au I happened to reach it from the Illinois State Rifle Association's Champaign branch web page, which is located at: http://www.cahmbana.com/~CCG/ and which has some rather interesting documents and photographs from the UN (read, NATO) mission in the Balkans. There really, genuinely, is an organized group of people in the United Nations who want to essentially ban all small arms, right down to the .22 rabbit rifle on farms from New South Wales to New Mexico to Wales. This isn't a "blak helikopters are massing on Catalina island to invade Pasadena" rumor, it's rather "UN bureaucrats from Japan, Canada, India and other countries are diligently drawing up detailed plans to ban all fireams, for what they see as the good of mankind"...and for political goals, as well. By the way, one of the more interesting documents from the Balkans concerns what the NATO folks consider appropriate small arms for a police station: One handgun per officer, and one shotgun for every ten officers. Period. Anything more is "excess" and likely to be confiscated by the peace- keeping forces. Folks on this list who are peace officers might want to contemplate that; I don't see any backup pieces, for example, nor does it necessarily follow that officer's families have any firearms at all. We live in interesting times... [------------------------- 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: Paul M Watson Subject: Clean thoughts on a dirty wall: Pvt. Ryan (fwd) Date: 29 Jul 1998 09:36:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by assets@been-there.com I just returned from the theater where I watched the latest Spielberg movie. After carefully considering what I'd seen for quite a while, I've come to the conclusion that Spielberg is one of the most cynical people of the Century. In "Schindler's List", he overlooked that Oskar Schindler's interests were in his labor pool (Jews), war profiteering and money and not the interests of the Third Reich. He also conveniently overlooked the fact (and Schindler's one act of REAL concern for those Jewish labourers), that before Schindler fled into Czechoslovakia, he ARMED the Jewish labourers he left behind so they could defend themselves from roving SS units. Why did he ignore that? Israel never forgot it. In "Ryan", he mercilessly exploits violence and carnage in an endless montage as we follow Tom Hanks around in a story that is similar in design to "A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich". My father died in the Pacific theater in WWII, so did an Uncle and two cousins who perished at Normandy. My wife's father served along with SEVEN of his brothers, three of them dying at Normandy. There are hundreds of thousands like we survivors. I also have a lot of friends on the Wall in D.C., and more than a few of them aren't buried anywhere. Spielberg, the pacifist and Clinton supporter and chum, owns one of the largest gun collections in California. As you can see from "Ryan" he is fascinated with war toys, I lost track of the number of times the MG42 and other ordnance and small arms were lovingly mentioned. Spielberg is throwing a fundraiser/promotion party for Clinton and "Pvt. Ryan" at the same time and place. Are his firearms ownership, use and possession rights at risk from the Clinton agenda? How can he justify a film with such unspeakable and unneccesary violence, make billions on it, then donate and arrange donations to a man who is a coward, shirked national service except perhaps for service to Moscow, and whose character is non existent, except for that which is bad? Does anyone remember the cynicism of Clinton "arranging" some rocks into a cruciform at the Normandy Beach? An example of modern new age buzzspeak dialog was when Hank's character tells Ryan that he'll "need some time with this", referring to the news of his brother's deaths. Yeah, I just KNOW they spoke that way. I'm OK with this, so let me get in touch with my feelings as soon as I work through it. Blecchh! And then, the final cynicism, the final insult, is this poor bastard, Pvt. Ryan, 54 years later, asking his wife if he's lived a good life. If he hadn't, he couldn't have approached that grave, unless he was as cynical as is our Commander in Chief and his fan, wannabe Spielberg. The use, by a movieland George Marshall, of Lincoln's words, twice, in a pat response to the loss of a son, husband or father, in this context made me choke with rage. I was in a little war, and the carnage was there, sure enough, along with the B.S. that goes along with war. Men are shot or blown to pieces, sometimes by our own side, and their buddies do try, heroically, to save them, often to no avail and the eternal psychological and physical scars that the survivors of war carry on into civilian life. But our fathers, grandfathers and uncles and the women who served in WWII saw real carnage and disaster, and that money is being made off their backs, their great sacrifices, horrible deaths and honorable service, to be given to the campaign funds and supporters of a lying coward and his ilk, who would disarm and weaken us personally and Nationally to the point of inviting attack, both from abroad and criminals at home, with the complicity of a hollywood wannabe, neither of whom have ever been within thousands of miles of conflict is just one of the most cynical and repugnant acts if not THE most cynical and repugnant act I've seen. Yeah, it's only a movie, but we live in an era when most young people have not the education or critical and analytical thinking skills to figure this out. Many youngsters LEARN history (or what they think is history) from these movies purporting to be historical in origin. It's propaganda, exploitation of violence to make an anti-war film while simultaneously using graphic violence and decrying violence. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of this film. Our youngsters have to know that there are some principles and events we simply must be willing to go to war over, and it would help if they knew why all those fine young men were in LSTs, sailing into a meatgrinder in the first place. A meatgrinder that could have been avoided in the 1930s were it not for the COWARDICE of the men in charge when it came time to call Hitler's bluff. Spielberg has had me for the last time. I'll be damned before I'll ever send another nickel his way again. He should be ashamed, but he isn't. What's worse, the movie will make hundreds of millions and few but the dinosaurs will question it. As Vonnegut said in "Slapstick", Hi-ho. To all you WWII vets out there, someone should apologize to you, but all I can do is thank you again for all you gave, all you did, and all you lost. Thank you. Joe Horn (c)1998 -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: Clean thoughts on a dirty wall: Pvt. Ryan (fwd) Date: 29 Jul 1998 09:36:38 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Cc: Joe Horn Posted to texas-gun-owners by Paul M Watson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:46:08 -0600 assets@been-there.com wrote: > Posted to texas-gun-owners by assets@been-there.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > I just returned from the theater where I watched the latest Spielberg > movie. After carefully considering what I'd seen for quite a while, I've > come to the conclusion that Spielberg is one of the most cynical people of > the Century. > Saving Private Spielberg By Richard Grenier THE WASHINGTON TIMES If there was any valid reason for the United States fighting World War II, one cannot find it in this summer's great prestige film, "Saving Private Ryan." Not from the frayed American flag at the film's opening, symbolically shown from the rear, to the equally frayed flag shown at the film's end, also shown from the rear. Rather amazingly, Steven Spielberg, the film's director, has reportedly confessed that the character he most identifies with in his movie is the platoon coward, who throughout the film flees the enemy and cowers trembling, letting his platoon mates do the fighting. I don't know whether to consider this the author's honesty or his unusual shamelessness, but it seems to be both. The odd part is that Mr. Spielberg appears rather proud of his cowardice, a phenomenon one doesn't come across too often. "Private Ryan" opens with a 35-minute re-creation of Omaha Beach during the Normandy invasion (inferior in every respect to the documentary on the subject just released by PBS). But both prove (if proof is needed) that war is a horrible business. Then Captain Tom Hanks receives word that his Ranger platoon is to go forward in a needle-in-a-haystack search for Private James Francis Ryan (Matt Damon). Why Private Ryan? Because the War Department has learned that all Ryan's brothers have been killed in combat and --an act of mercy to his parents -- has decided to pull their last remaining son out of combat and send him home. Allegations to the contrary, this sounds like fiction. As the rescue platoon proceeds through a battlefield criss-crossed by both American and German forces, we learn, somewhat surprisingly, that not a single member of the U.S. platoon has any desire for his country to win the war. (Remember the backview flag.) The platoon sergeant, indeed, says the war's one achievement, if they can only find him, will be saving Private Ryan. Stephen Ambrose, the film's historical consultant, has written an essay in which he declares there must have been something to motivate the American soldiers to climb out from behind the seawall on Omaha Beach, or through Normandy's hedgerows. But we see nothing of Mr. Ambrose's view in the film. All the gore and mayhem seem quite pointless. The platoon's ace sharpshooter is an evangelical Christian who offers a prayer to Jesus before every German he picks off. This plot contrivance, much emphasized, seems to imply that Mr. Spielberg thinks violence is the Christian way. If all Allied forces were like Mr. Spielberg they'd presumably have simply thrown down their weapons and let Nazi Germany win the war -- and people like Mr. Spielberg would have ended up in Nazi death camps. Although he professes Judaism, and has even converted his wife, Mr. Spielberg doesn't seem to have worked out such details. As it is, the platoon's coward finally redeems himself by shooting an unarmed prisoner. This is the character with whom Steven Spielberg reportedly identifies. It's a vivid example of the Vietnam generation's triumph of a sort that Mr. Spielberg should at this point have stretched his anti-Americanism -- at least his hostility to America at war -- to all of four films. The first, made in the 1970s, was "1941." Although this seems unrealistic now, there was a war scare in California immediately after Pearl Harbor during which the population feared, if the Japanese had crossed the Pacific and reached Hawaii, that California was next. Thousands of patriotic Americans rushed to National Guard detachments and simply to the beaches with shotguns, to defend their country. For some reason Mr. Spielberg found this hilarious. Few Americans seem to have agreed with him and "1941" was a total fiasco. Mr. Spielberg's next war film was "Empire of the Sun," in which a young English boy, in areas occupied by Japan during the Pacific War, adopts a kind of hero worship toward the Japanese pilots and their Zeroes. Then everyone but Mr. Spielberg remembered that these were the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, and "Empire of the Sun," too, was a fiasco. Meanwhile, Mr. Spielberg had made the hugely successful "E.T.", in which he seemed to imagine outer space filled with harmless, benevolent creatures, whereas all the brutal earthlings shown are Americans. No one seemed to notice the brutal earthlings all wore conspicuous shoulder patches with the Stars and Stripes. All of which left me wondering if Mr. Spielberg, Jewish after all, would ever get around to dealing with the European, Auschwitz part of World War II. And he finally did so in "Schindler's List," in which we encounter Jewish concentration camp victims, vicious Nazis, one good German . . . and no one else. The American forces that defeated Nazi Germany are never mentioned. Not once. And thus, at long last, we arrive at "Saving Private Ryan," in which the only good thing the U.S. Army seems to do is save Private Ryan --a worthy deed, no doubt. But is that it? Mr. Spielberg seems at considerable pains to avoid mentioning anything else creditable achieved during the war by America, which is after all his own country. What kind of a man is this? What would he think of a platoon (five men killed out nine) sent forth to rescue a Private Spielberg caught out there under enemy fire? Doubtless, he'd cheer them on lustily. But what of the millions of other Americans called on to defeat a military enemy which had attacked their country. The record of Mr. Spielberg's latest film, and in fact of his entire career, is that he'd think these men fools, perhaps vicious fools. Unless, of course, they were being sent out to save Private Spielberg. FRONT PAGE | POLITICS | OPINION | INVESTIGATIVE | INTERNATIONAL | BUSINESS | LETTERS | SUBSCRIBE -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Two web sites Date: 29 Jul 1998 11:27:49 PST Correction; Sorry 'bout that! On Jul 29, Jim Sharp wrote: >Good post but one of your links is wrong. > >Try - http://www.chambana.com/~CCG > > >ataylor@nmsu.edu wrote: >> >> Both sites are very interesting. THe first is the Australian site. >> >> This site is excellent. It's also alarming as all get out. >> Some of the proposals regarding "microdisarmament" being >> pushed in the UN by the Japanese, Canadian and Australian >> governments are "supported" by text from Australia. > >> We live in interesting times... > >-- >Jim >KE9JR > >It's not about guns, it's about freedom... -- ***** 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: Jeff Cooper's Commentaries - 20/Jul/98 (fwd) Date: 29 Jul 1998 15:11:54 PST On Jul 29, Barry Needham wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Attached is the latest issue of Jeff Cooper's Commentaries. Comments can be sent directly to Jeff at: Jeff Cooper Gunsite Ranch Paulden, Arizona 86334. As usual, I would be happy to forward any comments from our international readers. These Commentaries are also available on the web. In fact, all of the Commentaries, from the end of the old Gunsite Gossip, are available. The url(s) for this are: http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/JeffCooper/ http://wwww.concentric.net/~mkeithr/jeff/index.html http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/jeffcooper/ Enjoy, Barry. ============================================================= Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Previously Gunsite Gossip Vol. 6, No. 8 20 July, 1998 The Rains Came And they came right on the dot! Traditionally the summer rains are to commence on the 5th of July so as not to spoil the 4th of July parade. So that is exactly what happened. Congratulations on excellent timing on everybody's part! * * * We were one and all dismayed at the murder of Marion Carl, one of the great aviators and a true hero. There is no need to recount his list of honors and achievements, but from our standpoint it is especially sad to note that General Carl, while unarmed, was shot dead by a goblin who broke into his house late at night and threatened his wife. General Carl attacked the intruder with his bare hands -- and lost. As I understand it, he had a shotgun ready in the bedroom, but no gun is of any use if you cannot put your hand on it. This means, unfortunately, that you must wear your pistol, or at least have it ready to hand when anything unusual intrudes upon your home. General Carl's murderer kicked in the door. Your door or doors should be very difficult to kick in. General Carl responded without his weapon. General Carl was a great man, and may God bless him, but, sad to say, he was an easy mark. As Barrett Tillman put it, Valhalla is now nearly full. * * * Excerpt from The Prairie Traveler (the best-selling classic handbook for America's Pioneers) by Randolph B. Marcy, Captain, U.S. Army, 1859. "Every man who goes into the Indian country should be armed with a rifle and revolver, and he should never, either in camp or out of it, lose sight of them. When not on the march, they should be placed in such a position that they can be seized at an instant's warning; and when moving about outside the camp, the revolver should invariably be worn in the belt, as the person does not know at what moment he may have use for it." * * * The proliferation of "pocket 45's" has us somewhat bewildered. A pocket 45 is a good idea, but naturally it must be well-made and easy to use. We asked Jan Libourel, our colleague at Petersen's Handguns, for his recommendation and came to the conclusion that a straight forward Colt Commander still has much to recommend it, especially in the version with the shortened butt. All sorts of service nines are being offered, especially in Europe, but they are still nines. Using a 9mm pistol for self-defense is much like using a 375 on buffalo. Most of the time it will do -- most of the time. * * * We have looked into this matter of coating rifle bullets with molybdenum disulfide, and we conclude that while it has certain proven advantages, such as a cleaner bore and a slight improvement in coefficient of friction, these advantages are minor. I will take it, if offered, with pleasure, but I will not go out of my way to seek it. * * * It is never safe to say that one has seen everything. Now, for example, we have seen somebody tack a butt-cuff on a Steyr Scout! * * * Police in Britain using a radar gun noted a reading of more than 300 mph, just before their equipment fried. Seconds later a low-flying Harrier jet hurtled past. The police complained to the Royal Air Force about the damage to their equipment, but the police were told to consider themselves lucky. The Harrier's target-seeker had locked onto the radar and triggered an automatic retaliatory air-to-surface attack. Fortunately for the police, the Harrier was not armed with missiles." - Ken Pantling We have all noted (all, that is, except those people on the other side) that in states where it is now possible to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, street crime has declined. The connection would seem obvious, but not, of course, to the Brady Bunch. * * * This matter of terminology continues to perplex. In activities requiring dexterity, endurance, strategy, and skill it has become commonplace to refer to an expert as a "master." If one looks at the record, it becomes clear that a master is a teacher. He should be very good at what he does, but mainly he should be good at teaching what he knows. Consider, for example, the "headmaster" of a school. Thus a practitioner of weaponcraft should properly not be considered a master unless he regularly teaches his craft to others. In England in the Middle Ages masters of weaponry were licensed by the crown, and one of the interesting provisions was that once a master had attained that designation he was forbidden thereafter to compete in his activity. Today almost anyone who has ever done well in a contest or been to school sees no shame in opening his own school, thus placing himself in the category of master, whether he knows it or not. The country today is awash in two-bit schools of pistolcraft. They will take your money and hand you a ticket, but whether you are any better with your weapon after graduation will depend entirely upon the competence of the master. (Today I know of two proven and verifiable "shooting masters" -- John Gannaway and Louis Awerbuck.) * * * Times are tough out West. The peasantry have been reduced to eating sharks, and the aristocracy to drinking water! * * * What does it take to be a master of weaponcraft? First, it requires demonstrated expertise with the chosen weapon. A master need not be a world champion in competition, but he does need to be a dangerous competitor. He must be able to do everything that the weapon is capable of doing, and doing it on demand. He must be able to show his students exactly what is expected of them, while not, at the same time, intimidating them. Second, the master must understand the theory of the technique of his instrument. He must know the geometry and physiology behind the shooting process. Generations of military and police instructors have got by without this by simply emphasizing "This is the way we do it!" While that may be good enough for government work, it is not the best way to success. I remember from long years ago an encounter with a great master of the saber. We youngsters depended almost entirely upon speed, but this gentleman showed us that speed was unimportant without timing. To demonstrate he would choose a pupil and than say exactly how and where he would hit him -- and then do it. When your master can do that to you, you tend to believe what he says. Third, the master must have a genuine desire to impart. Here is where the master differs from the mere expert. He must desire excellence in his students more than excellence in himself, and seek at all times to produce that. We have all known some very good shots who have failed as teachers because of a lack of this essential desire. Fourth, the master demonstrates "command presence," which is a combination of articulation, vocal tone, posture, and attitude. The master must be able to command without rank. Obviously, true masters of weaponcraft are not common. During the time I ran the school at Gunsite, I sought continually for people who displayed the necessary qualifications, but I did not find a lot of people who made the grade. That is doubtless one reason why really good marksmanship is so rare. Very few practitioners are truly qualified to teach it. * * * The classic Luger pistol, which introduced the now world-standard 9mm Parabellum cartridge, was given the year designation of 08, since it was adopted by the German army in 1908. Now, as we come onto its centennial, we see advertised in Germany the "Sport Luger 2008." It seems to be set up with all sorts of bells and whistles, including (for heaven's sake) a muzzle brake. It should certainly have a strong appeal for the "first kid on the block" pistolero. * * * Generally speaking, the rifle is a slow-fire instrument. Hardly anyone gives serious thought to the problem of getting into action quickly, although speed of the first shot is by no means an inconsiderable attribute of the expert marksman. This means that rifle stocks, in general, are too long. A rifle with a short stock can be handled easily by a man with long arms, but a long stock is a problem for a man with short arms. One of the first things we do when we open a rifle class is to saw an inch or two of wood off the butt. This often hurts the feelings of the pride-of-ownership-people, but when they get to snap shooting the pain is lessened. * * * The electronic disaster of Y2K approaches. You still have 17 months in which to throw away your computer. * * * In reading a new essay on Sergeant Alvin York, the hero of World War I, we discover that his most trying experience during the war was his trip home. He embarked at Bordeaux and headed out across the storm-tossed Atlantic. He was dreadfully seasick for five days. This is an awful thing to contemplate. I know a certain amount about hardship, and enough about pain, but I think that of all man's afflictions nausea may be the worst. Even for a couple of hours it is terrible, but for five days it would seem entirely too much. Which brings us to considering another hero, Horatio Nelson, who spent almost his entire life at sea and who was invariably seasick whenever his ship got outside the breakwater. In his case, however, the affliction never lasted more than 12 hours. Still, for a man to devote his life to sea fighting with the ogre of seasickness sitting in his lap takes a particular sort of courage. * * * As you may know, the gaboon viper is a big, strong, beautifully marked, and long-toothed snake inhabiting the low country of east Africa. In a recent anecdote we learn of a client who asked his PH about first-aid kits. Among other things he asked if there was any first-aid equipment for the bite of the gaboon viper. The PH responded that if he got solidly socked by a gaboon viper there would be no need for first aid. * * * The Mauser people in Germany have brought out a brand new model which manifests no imagination at all. It may be advanced that the Mauser 98 is so good that it needs no modification. It is good all right, especially considering that it is exactly 100 years old, but it is not that good. * * * English note: A split infinitive is not a crime, but it should not be used by accident, only to emphasize meaning where such emphasis is needed. * * * We are now informed, by a good authority from Texas, that you may not now enter the Alamo carrying your pistol, even if you have all the necessary permits. "If'n that don' beat all!" Here we have a memorial temple dedicated to American fighting men, into which American fighting men may not bring weapons. I know historical anecdotes are no longer taught in schools, but I did not think that things were that bad yet in Texas! * * * As you know, the British have no written constitution, and no Bill of Rights. Whatever the current majority in Parliament says is what goes, and the current leftist government in England makes no bones about its class hatred. An English correspondent has told us the only man who entered Parliament with the right idea was Guy Fawkes. You will remember that he was the guy who tried to blow the whole place up * * * On John Gannaway's triumphant desert sheep hunt last fall, he targeted his beast at something over 300 yards, and John does not exaggerate. The specialty journalist would have taken that shot, and later have expanded it to about 400. John, on the other hand, who is a master hunter, wormed his way up to 75. This can be done even with a mountain sheep by the right man. * * * We note that by mutual agreement the same man may be at the same time a citizen of both the United States and Mexico. This policy is called "dual citizenship." This would seem to be politically and philosophically unsound. A citizen must be prepared to risk his life for his country. Which country? If it comes to blows -- and it might - -- on which side will the "Mexican-American" fight? * * * It seems the feds now are requiring an accuracy test for federally-purchased handguns which calls for a 2-inch group (or is it 2.5) at 25 yards. Just what this has to do with the subject is obscure. The service pistol intended for close combat is going to be used at indoor distances by people who cannot shoot for sour apples. Imposing an accuracy test on such arms suggests the proverbial definition of a fanatic as "one who redoubles his efforts after he has lost sight of his goals." * * * And this bench group obsession seems to have run away with a great number of rifleman who apparently think that a small group diameter fired from a bench at a fixed range, usually 100 yards, is the ultimate test of rifle quality. Well now, small groups are fine, and we all like them, but bench groups are essentially irrelevant. If you wish to evaluate a rifle's quality, I suggest the MFR standard. MFR stands for Maximum Field Radius, and it is established thus: The rifle is fired in two-shot pairs, standing-to-sitting, at 100 yards. Time is 10 seconds from standing looped to sitting (or kneeling) position, unsupported. The ten shots thus achieved will form a group, but its diameter is not its true measure -- rather group radius, from group center to the worst shot of the ten, is the index of the combination. The lower the figure the better. You cannot do a good MFR index without an accurate rifle, but this index tests more than that. An MFR of 3 inches is good. One of 2 inches is excellent. Bench group diameter does not count. * * * If you look like a rabbit, and act like a rabbit, you will be treated like a rabbit -- prey for all predators." - Stony Loft * * * Have you heard about the Communitarians? Neither had we, but they exist. They are organized, and they constitute something of a pain in the posterior. Their guru is one Amitaj Etzioni, and his in-house propagandist is Abd el Malik. These people have decided what is wrong with the United States, and one of the things they find wrong is the popular possession of personal firearms. Their idea of the way to go is Japan. (Japan?) I do not know where these people originated (Turkey? Yemen?), but their presumption in teaching political philosophy to Americans is insufferable. They are so far off the track I cannot consider them to be a menace, if it were not for the fact that they appear to have several followers in that menagerie at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- not pointing. Turks have always been something of a problem, but let us see that these do not get over the wall. * * * The more expert gardeners in our neighborhood are already enjoying their off-the-vine tomatoes. The Arabs maintain that a beautiful woman is evidence of the existence of God -- and one might also opine that a fresh garden tomato, like an ear of corn fresh off the stalk, is also evidence of God's benison. We have a short growing season here in the high country of Arizona, but possibly we enjoy it all the more because of that * * * Continuing in our hopeless struggle for precise semantics we ask somebody to tell us just what exactly is a "terrorist." My own notion is that a terrorist is one who is ready to kill a third party, who is not involved in the discussion, in order to coerce a first party by appealing to his humanity. That, apparently, is not the generally accepted definition. * * * One of the most tiresome shibboleths floating around is the notion of "a constitutional separation of church and state." Anyone can read the Constitution, but in this age of television I suppose very few people read anything. If one reads the Constitution he will discover that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or interfering with the free exercise thereof." That states very clearly that the federal government cannot pass a bill saying that the Catholic church, for example, is the established religion of the United States. That is what it says. It says nothing about any separation, which idea was the creation of Thomas Jefferson. Whether Mr. Jefferson is right or not is irrelevant. There is no constitutional separation of church and state. Read it! * * * I wish people would quit putting the leopard in the category of "the Big Five." Up until recently that was more properly "the 'Big Four." Certainly the leopard is fast and scratchy, but he is not big. * * * These newfangled pop range finders are very humbling. It was decided long ago in the American sporting world that every hunter is morally bound to exaggerate the range at which he took his animal. This has resulted in the idea that if you cannot deck your animal way out past Fort Mudge, you are a no-count. I have had students in rifle classes come up to me upon occasion troubled by the fact that they did not seem to be shooting as well as they ought to. As a matter of fact, they were usually shooting very well, it was just that they had been reading too many gun writers. The range finder might do something to correct this, but I doubt it. A man can lie about his range finder reading as easily as he can about the length of his pace. * * * A new passion in the firearms industry seems to be the construction of so-called "sniper rifles." Just what these are for is not easy to say, for successful sniping is far more a matter of marksmanship than of equipment, but these items are apparently easy to sell to various sorts of government agencies, and if they will sell, the industrialists will make them. A new entry into the field is a version of the elegant R93 from Blaser -- but this time made up in black livery and all sorts of bells and whistles, including (for heaven's sake) a Harris bipod. I suppose every rifle aficionado feels he must have a specially made, long-range "bull" gun -- not because he needs it, but because he wants it, and after all, wanting it is the main reason for the purchase of personal arms. * * * We have all sorts of candidates for the Waffenposselhaft award for '98, but one which stands out is the exploit of the chief of police of Madison, Wisconsin, who opted to store his service pistol in the oven - -- with foreseeable results. There being no appropriate penalty for "terminal stupidity" in his department, the chief put himself under hack for "violation of department policy." * * * In reading continually into U.S. history I discover to my surprise that personal firearms amongst the pioneers were not nearly as common as I had thought. For example, the majority of recruits volunteering for Stonewall Jackson's command in the Civil War showed up not only without shoes, but also without guns. Evidently the only gun within reach had to stay at home with pa and ma. In some cases, Jackson put unarmed men in his second and third waves, instructing them to pick up weapons dropped by casualties in the first rank. We think of the American pioneer as invariably in possession of his ax and his rifle. That was obviously the way it should have been, but sometimes was not * * * I have had such a response to my query about the purpose of education that we might even be advised to hold a true seminary on the point, preferably in Scottsdale while the summer rates are still in force. Scottsdale may be a furnace in August, but as long as you are indoors you do not suffer. * * * We hear overmuch about "self-esteem" as a goal in elementary education. The older term "self-respect" seems more to the point. The difference is that self-respect must be earned by conscientious endeavor, but self-esteem seems to be offered simply to any child who is alive and breathing. Teaching a young person that he is excellent simply because he is there is not the route to producing good citizens. * * * - From family member Ken Pantling in England we get the following news item: "During a bungled surveillance operation a policeman opened fire on two innocent suspects thinking that he had been shot by one of them. He later realized that he had, in fact, shot himself, in the leg The Brits may be ahead of us on the way to total insignificance, but not by much. * * * Now we have seen a brand new Walther 10mm service pistol in bright green. What will they think of next! * * * "The generation that emerged to lead the colonies into independence was one of the most remarkable group of men in history -- sensible, broad-minded, courageous, usually well educated, gifted in a variety of ways, mature, and long-sighted, sometimes lit by flashes of genius. It is rare indeed for a nation to have at its summit a group so variously gifted as Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Adams" - A History of the American People, by Paul Johnson * * * We note with some amusement that this Viagra business has produced more than one interesting spinoff. It has reduced the black market value of powdered rhino horn, and thus reduced rhino poaching in black Africa. (Note: There is little or no rhino poaching in the south.) * * * "Well, Bill [Bill Hickok] was a pretty good shot. But he could not shoot as quick as half a dozen men we all knew in those days, nor as straight either. But Bill was cool, and the men who he went up against were rattled, I guess. Bill beat them to it. He made up his mind to kill the other man before the other man had finished thinking." Buffalo Bill {Bill Cody) in an interview conducted 10 January 1917 and written up in Outdoor Life via W.H. MacFarlane That pretty well tells us what we need to know about mindset. * * * "If one does not fail at times, one has not challenged himself sufficiently." - Ferdinand Porsche * * * Please Note: These "Commentaries" are for personal use only. Not for publication. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNb9Fe6j/uNL4ljF9AQEmTQgAx3rCI3d23TYLNKB1n/q9GQudlXcHORpe cwmqCytVNpdThqIhotwA2wI3MA5B9FQBslJsjz4aFsjt22tJsRk4rVmoTDMQ2FTr A1tM5mHLWjWI3qbdT5Qimt3oQE07SE6fB59KuTMWZikiU9WjXJbml2sw1BXs/MV+ mJDq16v2JHSmRuvdTIgheAkcPwy5dt2nqDtzNQgChwHKvuMdsjmAuoOq3+UAVyed jNhPGSxCBH7Wxd8LJfC0N0MP7bSKjOFURcUakETnHSjIdBQyKMG2yCvV32Wmt+P3 UT7gZn2U814Cmp0XpRBTTKwosMb5sDIRrsMVpFkcsPSVsnDkyIe3HQ== =aVBh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Barry Needham barry@needham.vip.best.com Pager: 1-888-530-5814 PGP 5.0 key available on request barryn_p@pager.sgi.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FW: Simple Rules (fwd) Date: 29 Jul 1998 23:08:53 PST On Jul 29, Dave Workman wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This I had to share: >From: "Dave Hood" >Subject: FW: Simple Rules >Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:55:28 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >Importance: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > > >1. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully. > >2. Memorize your favorite poem. > >3. Don't believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all > you want. > >4. When you say, "I love you", mean it. > >5. When you say, "I'm sorry", look the person in the eye > >6. Be engaged at least six months before you get married > >7. Believe in love at first sight. > >8. Never laugh at anyone's dreams. > >9. Love deeply and passionately. You might get hurt but it's > the only way to live life completely. > >10. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling. > >11. Don't judge people by their relatives. > >12. Talk slow but think quick. > >13. When someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, > smile and ask, "Why do you want to know?". > >14. Remember that great love and great achievements involve > great risk. > >15. Call your mom. > >16. Say "bless you" when you hear someone sneeze. > >17. When you lose, don't lose the lesson. > >18. Remember the three R's: > Respect for self; > Respect for others; > Responsibility for all your actions. > >19. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship. > >20. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate > steps to correct it. > >21. Smile when picking up the phone. The caller will hear it in > your voice. > >22. Marry a man/women you love to talk to. As you get older, > his/her conversational skills will be as important as any >other. > >23. Spend some time alone. > >24. Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values. > >25. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer. > >26. Read more books and watch less TV. > >27. Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and > think back, you'll get to enjoy it a second time. > >28. Trust in God but lock your car. > >29. A loving atmosphere in your home is so important. Do all > you can to create a tranquil harmonious home. > >30. In disagreements with loved ones, deal with the current > situation. Don't bring up the past. > >31. Read between the lines. > >32. Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality. > >33. Be gentle with the earth. > >34. Pray -- there's immeasurable power in it. > >35. Never interrupt when you are being flattered. > >36. Mind your own business. > >37. Don't trust a LOVER who doesn't close his/her eyes when you > kiss them. > >38. Once a year, go someplace you've never been before. > >39. If you make a lot of money, put it to use helping others > while you are living. That is wealth's greatest satisfaction. > >40. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a > stroke of luck. > >41. Learn the rules then break some. > >42. Remember that the best relationship is one where your love > for each other is greater than your need for each other. > >43. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to > get it. > >44. Remember that your character is your destiny. > >45. Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon. [------------------------- 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: Are you ready? (FWD) Date: 29 Jul 1998 23:03:54 PST On Jul 29, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Freedom's Last Stand Are You Willing To Fight for Your Guns? By Stephen Weaver During the latter stages of the Rhodesian Bush war, in the late 1970's a particularly salient tactical point was demonstrated to those with eyes to see. Embattled Rhodesia, fighting for its very life and ostracized by virtually the entire world, quietly adopted a policy change for its armed forces. As a result, the selector switches on thousands of FN-FAL rifles were deliberately switched from the full-auto mode to semi-automatic as a matter of standard procedure. The reason was the shortage of ammunition brought about by international sanction efforts. The effects were startling in that nothing changed as far as battle outcome in spite of a better-armed and equipped enemy in increasingly superior numbers penetrating Rhodesia from three fronts. The communist-trained and supplied terrorist maintained the full auto mode with their AK-47s right up until the end. When the final battles came. the outnumbered and outgunned Rhodesians had never lost a single encounter; rather, their demise came at the negotiation table-which is a point for deep reflection. What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting for home and hearth. As we stand today with the threat of legislation banning the possession and/or manufacture of semiautomatic weapons, we had best pause and consider this carefully. And a ban of so called assault rifles today will become a ban on your Remington 1100 tomorrow -- bet on it. The Second Amendment has been dealt numerous and severe infractions in multiple, localized instances over the past half-century. But never before has it faced the broad onslaught we now see. The avowed goal of those in our very government is to strip us of our rights under the Second Amendment. Should this occur, however, it will ultimately be our fault, not theirs. The reason for this is the Second Amendment. As an American in the middle of my fourth decade in this life I, like many others, look around in utter shock and dismay at the rapid unraveling of our culture. I've managed to get to this point in life without running afoul of our laws even once. I am not associated with or an adherent to any group espousing supremacist views, Nor do I advocate the violent overthrow of the government... at this point in time. I will confess to holding numerous politically incorrect attitudes, however. I've been fortunate to be able to live abroad in several countries, which has given me a good deal of perspective from which to speak, But, I speak as an American whose family has been in this country since before the revolution. Now I look at the fast-approaching tomorrow when I may be legislated a criminal for what is my legal right today. This is because I own a couple of semi-automatic weapons. One of them was bequeathed to me by my late father and was purchased by him in the middle 1920's -- insidious weaponry indeed! Yet I face the possibility that I could wake up one day and be felon unless I immediately turn in these weapons. This is something I will not do. Those words are not written lightly or without the awareness that someone will read them that I would rather not have reading them. Nevertheless I am compelled to write this, under my own name, because I cannot, in good conscience, keep quiet on the issue. Should such legislation pass in this country, I do expect the possibility that I might not live for any great period of time there after. For at that point I will bear arms against the so-called government of that day. I will do so if I have to do it alone and I will do it for several very good and legal reasons. It is legal, now, for me to write and for this to be published because we have a first Amendment. We have that because some vestiges of the Constitution are still intact. Right behind our freedom of speech and freedom of religion our forefathers placed a second pillar of this republic, the right to bear arms. In many ways it has supported and still does support the rest. I'll not go into a long discourse about the legal basis for our Second Amendment rights. That's been done by better legal minds than mine and is readily available to the inquiring mind. I'll suffice to say that, in the succinct words of a bumper sticker, "the Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting." What it is about is our culture, our country and our whole way of life I'll not give that up without a fight. The late Christian theologian Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer once made a statement that has stuck with me for many years: "If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been make autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the Living God." The thrust of what Dr. Schaeffer has said here is as relevant to the secular as it is to the Christian audience he addressed. In a nutshell, if you don't have a defensible bottom line, you've just make the government your personal god. The context of the discourse from which this quote was taken was the rule of law in our culture. In the American expression of western culture the rule of law is embodied in the Constitution of the United States, of which the Second Amendment is an integral part. To an American, then, this is our relevant bottom line, from a secular governmental perspective. In the words of the Constitution itself, Article VI, Section 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance, thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land." The Second Amendment is a part of this Constitution and is not in the authority of Congress to alter save by an amending process as submitted to the states. No 51-49 vote can legally supersede it. All powers in our Constitution are delegated at three levels: Federal, State and the People. This is where our Second Amendment rights lay, with the people. Very simply, Congress would be breaking the supreme law if it infringed on our Second Amendment right. It does not have that legal power and never has. Neither do the courts. Banning semiautos is a clear infringement in the same way I would handle it when encountered in the form of some dirtball on the street. I'm not in the habit of handing over my guns to any criminal, regardless of title or elected office. This too is an American attitude older than our Republic, It was essentially a British gun-grabbing attempt that ignited our Revolution. The lessons of Lexington and the conviction of Concord are sorely needed in out time. The Declaration of Independence has a lot to say about the reasons to dispose of government. And none of them are to be taken lightly. In this writer's opinion we are far beyond the of tyranny, which the minds of Jefferson, Washington and Madison decided was their bottom line. If we are not now on the verge of a similar point, with similar actions presenting themselves as strong possibilities, then we have tacitly declared Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: National bio-ID Card (fwd) Date: 29 Jul 1998 23:06:41 PST On Jul 29, BRIAN BECK wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------NetAddress--cgdaBK2483 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Use search criteria 3945 in the "DocketID" and up will pop a list. Item one is the proposed rules which MUST be opposed.We only have until Aug 3 to get our comments in. WE GOTTA KILL THIS THING. When I was in DC last week at the DOT/NTSA HQ, they had only received 200 letters of opposition! This is a giant step towards huge, intrusive and abusive government. You can bet gun owners will be some of the first victims of its application. http://dms.dot.gov:70/owa_dms8/owa/hitlist1 The following is also enclosed as a plain text file ------------------- Sample letter in opposition to the biometric ID card. Use it for ideas or use it as is. (Please reformat the text so that the entire lettere fits on two pages, add your name at the top, sign at the bottom, and MAIL by AUGUST 1, 1998) July 29, 1998 Docket Management, Room PL 401 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945 / DOCID:fr17jn98-28 23 CFR Part 1331: Proposed Rule: State-issued Driver's Licenses and Comparable Identification Documents. To Whom This May Concern: Please ad my name to the growing list of Organizations and Americans who are opposed to this back- door attempt to establish a National Bio-Metric Identity Card. The proposed rules you have written affect the lives of all law abiding Americans and will remove protections guaranteed to all Americans by the United States Constitution. I agree with the objections to the Proposed Notice of Rule Making as submitted in writing by other concerned Americans and would demand that these proposed rules be thrown out and be redrafted to ensure that protections guaranteed to all Americans by the United Stated Constitution are enshrined as part of the rules. 1. Remove the requirement for a Social Security Number to be part of the Drivers License. The SSN by federal law was never intended to be a personal identifier. The proposed rules arbitrarily limit the right to obtain a driver's license to those with a SSN and possessing a SSN has nothing to do with the ability to operate a motor vehicle. If the SSN is a requirement to obtain a Drivers License, then only persons who have a SSN will be allowed to drive. The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number to live and work in the United States, nor does the Social Security Act require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. 2. Remove the requirement for a digitized Fingerprint to be part of the Drivers License. 3. Remove the requirement for a digitized Voice Analysis as part of the Drivers License. 4. Remove the requirement for a digitized Retinal Scan as part of the Drivers License. I am firmly opposed to the concept and the gathering of personal bio-metric information by any governmental agency and believes such personal bio-metric information should never be ntroduced into the public domain by usage on identification documents. Americans have the constitutional right to travel and this right is protected by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of all 50 states as verified by existing case law. The proposed rules negate these rights, and as such, are unconstitutional. I specifically object to the rules requiring the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators be consulted. The AAMVA is a multi-national special interest group and this multi-national special interest group will enrich itself financially if the rules as written are passed. If State Motor Vehicle Administrators access the SSA to confirm SSNs through online access operated by the AAMVA subsidiary, AAMVAnet Inc., as indicated on Page 22 of the Preliminary regulatory evaluation, then the AAMVA and it's subsidiary stand to enrich itself financially at great monetary cost to American taxpayers. Any proposed rules should have a identified spending cap applied to the total amount charged American Taxpayers. Moreover, on Page 22 of the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, two Memorandums of Agreement are referred to, yet are not part of the proposed rules. Prior to any rules being adopted, all documents relating to AAMVA; it's subsidiary AAMVAnet Inc and AAMVA's Unified Network System should be made part of the public record and any proposed rules. Documents from the AAMVA; it's subsidiary AAMVAnet Inc.; and AAMVA's Unified Network System, that should be made part of the public record include, but are not limited to, any Memorandums of Understanding with the Social Security Administration or any State Motor Administrations; Memorandums of Agreements with the Social Security Administration or any State Motor Administrations; any Articles of Incorporation; any Non-Profit Articles of Incorporation; any IRS 501 C3 statements or applications; Business ame Statement as filed with the local county clerk; all organizational documents; all legal documentation relating to the principal officers, treasurer and identity of members; the physical street address of the AAMVA, it's subsidiary AAMVAnet Inc., and AAMVA's Unified Network System; the Uniform Identification Practices Model Program as referred to on Page 6 of the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation; along with details and identities of the Driver Licensing and Control Uniform Identification Working Group as formed by the AAMVA . Privacy and protection of information passing through any proposed computer systems is of paramount concern to me. I believe the AAMVAnet prohibitions on computer information as identified on Page 22 of the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation are insufficient and should be strengthened. Federal statues and fines should be included or attached to any misuse of information obtained by AAMVAnet. Moreover, heavy emphasis should be on an identified audit trail regarding the use of any bio-metric computer information and stiff federal and civil penalties should be applied and written into the rules for any violation of Federal, State or Local laws. Finally, I believe this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking violates the very fabric of the United States Constitution and the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking serves no useful purpose to the citizens of the United States of America. The entire Bio-Metric National ID Card concept as proposed by the AAMVA and the Department of Transportation / National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be discarded to protect the privacy of all Americans. Sincerely, ------------NetAddress--cgdaBK2483 Content-Type: text/plain; name="bio-ID.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="bio-ID.txt" Sample letter in opposition to the biometric ID card. Use it for ideas or use it as is. (Please reformat the text so that the entire lettere fits on two pages, add your name at the top, sign at the bottom, and MAIL by AUGUST 1, 1998) July 29, 1998 Docket Management, Room PL 401 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945 / DOCID:fr17jn98-28 23 CFR Part 1331: Proposed Rule: State-issued Driver's Licenses and Comparable Identification Documents. To Whom This May Concern: Please ad my name to the growing list of Organizations and Americans who are opposed to this back- door attempt to establish a National Bio-Metric Identity Card. The proposed rules you have written affect the lives of all law abiding Americans and will r I agree with the objections to the Proposed Notice of Rule Making as submitted in writing by other concerned Americans and would demand that these proposed rules be thrown out and be rerson and company criminals, and their subsequent government illegitimate. but history has shown this is decidedly not the case; the greatest experimentation in government has not been a complete failure. We've just let our elected government and its bureaucracies slip from the "chains" that Mr. Jefferson knew were the proper abode for all government. It is not time to scrap our Constitution, it is time to reinstate it as the lawful rule in this country. That is best done with the Constitution itself. Either we take the preamble of our Constitution seriously or we submit to the illegitimate and illegal actions of our elected officials as God in our lives. Our forefathers gave us a great gift: "We the People in Order to ...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [that's us] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Founders are gone, but what they gave us is still alive enough to save the "blessings of Liberty" if we've the courage to use it. It is to this point that I write these words and sign them with the intent of pledging my "life, any other free Americans left who will do likewise? There are those who will honestly question the need to draw such a line at this point. In rebuttal to that I'll point to the example of Rhodesia and the great concern of our founders over standing armies with the need to have an equally armed Militia. We cannot hope to prevail against a tyrannical government armed with fully automatic weapons when we are reduced to bolt actions or worse. We can prevail with our semi's, and they know it -- from behind every tree and rock, in a wholly American expression of "don't tread on me." You see, it is not street crime driving the anti-gunners, it is the complete disarmament of the American populace. If they've taken our semi's, they'll eventually get the rest without risk. Do I know what I'm suggesting here? Yes, I do. I am speaking of the specter of civil war while adamantly hoping it can be avoided. It is true that one shot could ignite a civil war under such a scenario but if so, as a Lexington, it would be a "shot heard round the world". Because if it were to occur our goal ought to be the reinstitution of the Constitution and the rule of law in our unraveling society. Further. it should be taken to the doors of those instigating such illegal acts that might precipitate a civil war; their vote for such a bill will mean they are to be put on trial for treason and conspiracy to violate our civil rights. This would include the president who signs it and perhaps the newspaper columnist and broadcast media who rail for its passage. In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, whose mother incidentally was an American, "Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.' To those who would consider burying their semi's in the backyard, I suggest a careful consideration of these words. We are nearly at a critical crossroads in the course of this nation. What we bequeath to our children (our posterity) should be no less than what was given us, the chance to live as free men and women. will you act when this critical moment arrives, or bow at the feet of your newfound god-feet that would soon be found to be wearing jackboots when they come to kick in your unprotected door? [------------------------- 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 ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - edrafted to ensure that protections guaranteed to all Americans by the 1. Remove the requirement for a Social Security Number to be part of the Drivers License. The SSN by federal law was never intended to be a personal identifier. The proposed rules arbitrarily limit the right to obtain a driver's license to those with a SS 2. Remove the requirement for a digitized Fingerprint to be part of the Drivers License. 3. Remove the requirement for a digitized Voice Analysis as part of the Drivers License. 4. Remove the requirement for a digitized Retinal Scan as part of the Drivers License. I am firmly opposed to the concept and the gathering of personal bio-metric information by any governmental agency and believes such personal bio-metric information should never be ntroduced into the public domain by usage on identification documents. Americans have the constitutional right to travel and this right is protected by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of all 50 states as verified by existing case law. The proposed rules negate these rights, and as such, are unconstit I specifically object to the rules requiring the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators be consulted. The AAMVA is a multi-national special interest group and this multi-national special interest group will enrich itself financially if the r If State Motor Vehicle Administrators access the SSA to confirm SSNs through online access operated by the AAMVA subsidiary, AAMVAnet Inc., as indicated on Page 22 of the Preliminary regulatory evaluation, then the AAMVA and it's subsidiary stand to enri Moreover, on Page 22 of the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, two Memorandums of Agreement are referred to, yet are not part of the proposed rules. Prior to any rules being adopted, all documents relating to AAMVA; it's subsidiary AAMVAnet Inc and AAMVA' Documents from the AAMVA; it's subsidiary AAMVAnet Inc.; and AAMVA's Unified Network System, that should be made part of the public record include, but are not limited to, any Memorandums of Understanding with the Social Security Administration or any St Identification Working Group as formed by the AAMVA . Privacy and protection of information passing through any proposed computer systems is of paramount concern to me. I believe the AAMVAnet prohibitions on computer information as identified on Page 22 of the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation are insuffici Finally, I believe this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking violates the very fabric of the United States Constitution and the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking serves no useful purpose to the citizens of the United States of America. The entire Bio-Metric Sincerely, ------------NetAddress--cgdaBK2483 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ------------NetAddress--cgdaBK2483-- [------------------------- 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: FYI: Intellectual Ammo (fwd) Date: 30 Jul 1998 06:51:50 PST On Jul 30, globallaw@tidalwave.net wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~mac/home.html "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." --Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: Charles Evans Hughes, Justice of the supreme Court (1907): "... the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Edward Gibbon, `The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire': "... the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459: "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." --William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." --Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87. [------------------------- 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: More Intellectual Ammo: The Second Amendment vis-a-vis Original Intent (fwd) Date: 30 Jul 1998 06:52:33 PST On Jul 30, globallaw@tidalwave.net wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > "A system of licensing and registration, is the perfect device to deny > gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Attention Shooters, In light of the tendancy of the Left to spread lies and disinformation regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment, I give you... More Intellectual Ammo: The Second Amendment vis-a-vis Original Intent, statutory interpretation and invasions of that inalienable Right. Please bear with me if you already know this stuff. If anyone uses this to blast a Leftist out of the water, it will have all been worth it. Now go git 'em. Semper Fi, Rick V. The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment Robert E. Shalhope[+] citing the meaning of the 'militia' clause: "It was Joel Barlow, however, who most eloquently articulated the vital role of arms in American republican thought. Barlow firmly believed that one of America's greatest strengths rested in "making every citizen a soldier, and every soldier a citizen; not only permitting every man to arm, but OBLIGING him to arm." http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/shalideo.html "Tucker observed that "whosoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." Blackstone himself informs us "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."*+* St. George Tucker, ed., Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia (5 vols., Philadelphia, 1803), I, 144, II, 412. THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT David E. Vandercoy[*] *+* "A move toward total disarmament occurred with passage of the Game Act of 1671.[81] The Game Act dramatically limited the right to hunt to those persons who earned over £100 annual income from the land.[82] More importantly, and unlike any prior game act, it made possession of a firearm by other than those qualified to hunt illegal and provided for confiscation of those arms.[83]" http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/vandhist.html http://www.2ndlawlib.org/related/saf-mal.html http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html http://home.earthlink.net/~dlaw70/repealed.html ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CROWN ON THE LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT: PRE- REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT Stephen P. Halbrook " The Supreme Court has enunciated the standard for constitutional interpretation as follows: "...in the construction of the language of the Constitution...we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument. Undoubtedly, the framers...had for a long time been absorbed in considering the arbitrary encroachments of the Crown on the liberty of the subject....[2]" " http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/rev-hal.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: Promulgation Of Massachusetts State-wide Firearms Surrender Program Mandated (fwd) Date: 30 Jul 1998 08:41:41 PST On Jul 29, William C. Walden wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The new Massachusetts gun law signed into law by acting governorCellucci last week, in section Chapter 180, section 131 O, requires the Colonel of the State Police to promulgate rules for a state-wide firearms surrender program. URL is http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/legis/laws/seslaw98/sl980180.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: Paul M Watson Subject: Show me your papers please Date: 30 Jul 1998 12:15:06 -0500 (CDT) "Show me your papers please" This used to be what we showed in the old black and white movies of how bad life was in Germany under the NAZI government. You had to carry proper identity and travel papers approved by government bureaucrats. You were subject to random stop and search and seizure of your papers at any moment by the police. 50 years later we are busy implementing like programs in the USA. --- Begin Forwarded Message --- ========================================================================== Q: Is a nationwide network for immunization records a good idea? No: A boon to Big Brother, this effort will compromise personal liberty and violate privacy. [ed. : HillaryCare Revisited... ] INSIGHT/The Washington Times Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion. Lisa S. Dean; SPECIAL TO INSIGHT INSIGHT/The Washington Times; Part SYMPOSIUM; Pg. 24 July 27, 1998, Monday, Final Edition Just imagine a woman going through nine months of pregnancy, obeying her doctor's every wish to eat right and stay fit in order to increase her chances of having a healthy baby. The woman takes care not to smoke or be around smokers, takes her vitamins and exercises in order to ensure her baby's good health. Then the moment of delivery finally arrives. The woman delivers a healthy baby, normal weight, good color, everything checks out. And then, some nurse whisks the child away and vaccinates him against, among other things, hepatitis B! The parents never made such a request. Moreover, it subjects the infant to an unnecessary medical risk. So what gives here? According to the hospital, the nurse shouldn't be fired. As a matter of fact, she should be given a commendation for following the states' applications of a new procedure recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, and legislated through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. In 1993, one of the provisions in first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's health-care plan included a massive federal database that would track every child from birth in the United States. Mercifully, that provision of the legislation died. However, HIPAA revived that database provision only three years later. Among other things, HIPAA mandated that a national mechanism be in place to collect medical information on each and every citizen electronically. In addition to that provision, HIPAA also mandated that all health-care providers, patients and their employers be given a personal health-identifier number and that number be entered as the patient's identification into the state database system, along with their medical information provided by the physician. In addition to being a blatant violation of doctor-patient privacy, it sets a dangerous precedent for the federal government to be tracking citizens on any subject, let alone the most private of information. Coupled with this dreadful legislation is Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala's mandate that all Social Security numbers belonging to newborns be given to the states for entry into state databases. This mandate, combined with HIPAA, paves a nice, neat little path to a federalized registry for all newborns, infants and children containing their medical histories, immunization records and so forth that had been confidential between doctor and patient. How will their mission be accomplished? Through the CDC's National Immunization Registry Clearinghouse, each state database will be linked to one large database held by the federal government, specifically the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS. Together the CDC and HHS will engage in tracking all children's - and, inevitably, all citizens' - medical records from birth. So what happens to the parents who object to Big Brother invading their privacy and that of their children and refuse to enter them into the CDC/HHS immunization registry? According to the National Vaccine Information Center, or NVIC, in Washington, parents already are finding out the answer to that question. "There have been cases where parents of a newborn have objected to the hospital immunizing their baby, only to find out later that the hospital had immunized the baby anyway without their consent," says Barbara Loe Fisher, president and cofounder of NVIC. Other cases cited by Fisher include parents whose children have been denied health insurance or prohibited from entering public schools because their parents have objected to hepatitis B vaccinations. In the past, vaccinations were mandated by local public-health authorities only after there was widespread understanding and acceptance of the practice. Virtually no one disputed the need for vaccinations against polio, mumps, measles, rubella, etc. Hepatitis B is an entirely different question. While there was widespread public support for immunizing children against mumps and measles, the same cannot be said for immunization against hepatitis B, a disease with which a large segment of the population has no contact. Moreover, it is one of dozens of new vaccines that are in the process of being manufactured or developed by pharmaceutical companies which stand to make billions from federally mandated requirements. Little wonder that the companies have formed a behind-the-scenes partnership with Shalala to push these mandates in return for ready-made markets created by federal control of the health-care system. But vaccinations never should be mandated by federal authorities. Local authorities have been perfectly capable of handling such policies, and some public-health advocates argue that vaccinations should not be mandated in the absence of a universal understanding and acceptance of the necessity for them. The problem with federal mandates is that they can create a situation where health care can be denied to someone who desperately needs it. God forbid that anything happen to a child where he has to be taken to the emergency room only to find that because he isn't in the database he doesn't have health insurance and therefore can't be treated. Could hospital personnel be this draconian about playing by the rule book? Well, consider the tragic case in Chicago recently, where a young boy died because personnel refused to treat him: He wasn't brought in by ambulance as required by hospital rules. The CDC/HHS database is only one of many tracking systems at the federal level. There are many others at the state level which keep records on citizens' private information. Last year, President Clinton announced the implementation of a new federal database, the National Directory of New Hires, which would collect personal information on every person who was hired for a job, whether full or part-time after Oct. 1, 1997. That effort - the largest federal roundup of information on citizens in U.S. history - is to be reported to the Department of Labor, but other agencies would have access to it. Clinton claimed the system was designed to track and deter deadbeat parents. However, because no one is spared entry into the database, all citizens who begin new jobs will be treated as deadbeat parents. On Jan. 1, 1998, after examining the TWA Flight 800 disaster, the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, on order of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, made it mandatory for all commercial airlines to begin collecting information on passengers. Such information would include how far in advance the ticket was purchased, if it was one-way or round-trip, whether it was paid for with cash or by credit card, hotel reservations, rental car and so forth. Despite the fact that the crash of Flight 800 was ruled to have been caused by a mechanical failure, the purpose for this profiling system, the FAA claimed, was to ensure passenger safety. Again, another federal agency is collecting information on citizens. The bottom line is that none of these databases is an isolated system. There is strong evidence that this database, too, will be linked with the others to compile one large file on every citizen in order for the government to track us from cradle to grave. Currently the Department of Transportation has proposed rules to create a national identification card which is only the beginning of an internal-passport system. It would take all of the information contained in each of the federal databases and place it on our driver's licenses or some other form of identification that would amount to a filing cabinet full of information on every American: medical records, job description and title, income, where he vacations, how he travels, his religion and if he's active in his church or community and in which activities he participates. It may sound somewhat conspiratorial to conclude that our private lives will not be private if our country continues along its current path. However, it would be false to call it conspiratorial. It is very real and the evidence is being shown to us in every way possible through databases and other forms of electronic monitoring. That's bad enough but, in Los Angeles County, 20 percent of the names in its new-hires database are proving to be erroneous. Parents are being sent bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support on the basis of mistaken identities. Such erroneous enforcement actions could have long-term consequences for Big Brother's victims. People who refuse vaccinations could be charged as child abusers. They can be treated as criminals if they refuse to supply Social Security numbers, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt assured us would never be used for anything other than Social Security. Already people are being denied passage on airlines because the computer mistook them for a bombing suspect. Citizens can be denied new jobs for which they are perfectly qualified simply because the database suggested that they are deadbeat parents. Law-abiding citizens who need to purchase firearms for their personal protection could be denied that right only because a database suggests -wrongly - that they are not eligible to buy a gun. How many times have you had the experience of ordering something over the phone only to find later that your name has been misspelled or your address is one digit off or your ZIP code entered incorrectly? Do we want faceless bureaucrats entering incorrect data into a system that ultimately will decide whether we have constitutionally protected rights and privileges? It is time for the American people to decide what course their country takes. Are we as a nation going to subject ourselves to monitoring systems that are worse than those to which the people of the former Soviet Union were subjected, or are we going to stand up and be counted by taking back our constitutional liberties? Without the help of an awakened people, there is little hope for a free society in America. Dean is cohost of Endangered Liberties, aired on the America's Voice television network, and vice president for technology policy at the Free Congress Foundation. Copyright 1998 News World Communications, Inc. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Still there? Date: 30 Jul 1998 12:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Hope you're still checking this address. Wanted to say I was sorry not to see you before you hit the dusty trail. I quit my job at WRQ the teusday before (I think) your packing party and was too busy tieing up loose ends and running out of town for some badly needed quiet time to stop by. Hope you were drowned in helpers. Let me know how everythings going, what's this retirment thing like? I hear it's time consuming : ) Hope all is well. Boyd (no longer boydk@wrq.com) Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Still there? Date: 30 Jul 1998 12:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Hope you're still checking this address. Wanted to say I was sorry not to see you before you hit the dusty trail. I quit my job at WRQ the teusday before (I think) your packing party and was too busy tieing up loose ends and running out of town for some badly needed quiet time to stop by. Hope you were drowned in helpers. Let me know how everythings going, what's this retirment thing like? I hear it's time consuming : ) Hope all is well. Boyd (no longer boydk@wrq.com) Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Still there? Date: 30 Jul 1998 17:07:18 -0700 (PDT) WOOPS! Sorry, and in the immortal words of the church lady, please; Nevermind. At 12:22 PM -0700 7/30/98, Boyd wrote: >Hope you're still checking this address. >Wanted to say I was sorry not to see you before you hit the dusty trail. I snip - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Still there? Date: 30 Jul 1998 17:07:18 -0700 (PDT) WOOPS! Sorry, and in the immortal words of the church lady, please; Nevermind. At 12:22 PM -0700 7/30/98, Boyd wrote: >Hope you're still checking this address. >Wanted to say I was sorry not to see you before you hit the dusty trail. I snip -