From: roc-owner@xmission.com To: roc-digest@xmission.com Subject: roc Digest V2 #34 Reply-To: roc@xmission.com Errors-To: roc-owner@xmission.com Precedence: roc Digest Thursday, 25 July 1996 Volume 02 : Number 034 In this issue: Schumer's HR 2580 Chuckie's latest fantasy from leaders: Update #5 W/Sample article from upcoming Summer issue Fwd: Should gun owners vote Republican or Libertarian See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the roc or roc-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:36:30 -0500 Subject: Schumer's HR 2580 Note below: >(7) this violence has increased in part because of unfounded > exaggerations about the impact of recent firearms laws such as > the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons, as well as baseless > conspiracy theories regarding the government; and Since when is discussion of the Second Amendment considered "unfounded exaggerations"? And what about those "baseless conspiracy theories"? And this guy wants to be Governor of New York? Bob Knauer - ----- From http://thomas.loc.gov/ H.R.2580 SPONSOR: Rep Schumer , (introduced 11/02/95) TITLE(S): SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED: Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED: A bill to guarantee a republican form of government to the States by preventing paramilitary violence. DIGEST: (AS INTRODUCED) Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act - Revises Federal criminal code provisions setting penalties for assaulting, resisting, intimidating, or impeding any of specified U.S. officers and employees (including Federal judges), to: (1) cover persons who commit such acts against State or local government officers or employees or persons assisting such officers or employees in the performance of official duty; and (2) increase penalties for such acts. Sets a minimum term of two years' imprisonment for: (1) transmitting in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing a threat to kidnap or injure any person; and (2) depositing, or causing to be delivered, any communication threatening to kidnap or injure any person. Declares that each person not otherwise disqualified, barred, or disabled by State or Federal law shall have the right to participate in a republican form of State government free from interference from unlawful violence and the reasonably perceived threat of such violence. Creates a private cause of action, as well as a government remedy (enforceable by the chief executive officer of any State) against any individual or organization for a violation of that right. Authorizes the court to award a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing plaintiff. Sets a five-year statute of limitations that begins with the date of discovery of the violation. Directs the Attorney General to develop and implement a training program for Federal law enforcement personnel to enable them to deal more effectively with politically motivated violence. Authorizes an agency that determines that an agency employee or agent is being unlawfully and physically prevented from carrying out lawful duties by employees or agents of a State, county, or local government, to file a complaint with the Attorney General. Directs the Attorney General to investigate the complaint and, if the Attorney General finds the complaint is meritorious, to place in escrow any payments that otherwise would be made to that county under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 until such time as such interference has CEASED. FULL TEXT: (AS INTRODUCED) Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act (Introduced in the House) HR 2580 IH 104th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2580 To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by preventing paramilitary violence. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 2, 1995 Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by preventing paramilitary violence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) section 4 of article IV of the Constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government to the States; (2) organized criminal actions are an increasing threat to the republican form of government in some States; (3) people who are responsible for upholding the laws of the United States and the several States, or people who assist them, have been threatened, harassed, and assaulted because of these activities; (4) this violence is having a chilling effect on the democratic process because Americans are afraid to participate in town hall meetings, express their views publicly, or take part in the political process; (5) most victims are targeted solely because of their views or activism on controversial political issues such as gun control, abortion, environmental matters, or the role of government in society; (6) this violence is causing a breakdown of law and order in many parts of the United States; (7) this violence has increased in part because of unfounded exaggerations about the impact of recent firearms laws such as the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons, as well as baseless conspiracy theories regarding the government; and (8) the climate of violence created by these criminals threatens to undermine republican government in some States. SEC. 3. PROTECTION AGAINST ASSAULT. Section 111(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `who is an officer or employee of any State or local government, is assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of official duty, or is' after `any person'; and (2) in paragraph (2), by striking `designated in section 1114' and inserting `described in paragraph (1)'. SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES. (a) ASSAULT- Section 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended (1) in subsection (a), by striking `shall, where' and all that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting `shall be punished as is provided in subsection (b)'; and (2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows: `(b) PENALTIES- Whoever is convicted of an offense under this section shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 2 nor more than 3 years, except that-- `(1) in the case of a second or subsequent offense the maximum term or imprisonment shall be not more than 5 years; and `(2) in the case of an offense committed with a deadly weapon, the offender shall be imprisoned not less than 8 nor more than 10 years.'. (b) EXTORTION AND THREATS- (1) INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS- Section 875 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in subsection (c), by striking `not more than five years, or both' and inserting `not less than 2 nor more than 5 years'. (2) MAILING THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS- Section 876 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the third undesignated paragraph, by striking `not more than five years, or both' and inserting `not less than 2 nor more than 5 years'. SEC. 5. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT; ENFORCEMENT. (a) REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHT- Each person not otherwise disqualified, barred, or disabled by State or Federal law shall have the right to participate in a republican form of State government free from interference from unlawful violence and the reasonably perceived threat of unlawful violence. (b) RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE DEFINED- As used in subsection (a), the term `right to participate in a republican form of State government' means the right to-- (1) carry out the duties of a State, county, or local office to which the person has been duly elected or appointed; (2) lawfully assist any duly elected or appointed person described in paragraph (1) in carrying out such duties; (3) run for elective office, campaign for such office on one's own behalf, or campaign on behalf of another's candidacy, in accordance with applicable State and local laws; (4) initiate and campaign for any initiative, referendum, petition, or similar political exercise, in accordance with applicable State and local laws; (5) assemble peaceably to petition the Federal, State, or local government, or to attend any public forum concerning such Federal, State, or local government; and (6) exercise the rights guaranteed under article IV of the Constitution of the United States, and the 1st and 14th amendments thereto. (c) ENFORCEMENT- (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated by any person or organization may bring an action in any United States district court against such other person or organization for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. (2) GOVERNMENT REMEDY- The chief executive officer of any State may bring an action in any United States district court located within that State for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate against any organization wherever located which unlawfully violates or which conspires, attempts, aids, or abets another person or organization to unlawfully violate the right under subsection (a) of any resident of that State. (3) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1) or (2), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. (4) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) or (2) after the 5-year period that begins with the date that the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered. SEC. 6. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretaries of Treasury, Agriculture, and the Interior, shall develop and implement a training program for Federal law enforcement personnel to enable such personnel to deal more effectively with politically motivated violence. SEC. 7. FEDERAL PAYMENTS WITHHELD. (a) COMPLAINT- If an agency determines that in any county any of that agency's employees or agents is being unlawfully physically prevented or impeded, by employees or agents of a State, county, or local government, from carrying out lawful duties, the agency may file a complaint with the Attorney General. (b) ESCROW- The Attorney General shall investigate the complaint, and if the Attorney General finds the complaint is meritorious, the Attorney General may place in escrow any payments that otherwise would be made to that county under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), until such time as the Attorney General is satisfied that such interference has ceased. (c) RULES- The Attorney General shall make rules governing the procedures used to carry out this section. - -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------ From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 12:15:53 CDT Subject: Chuckie's latest fantasy A good friend has just acquainted me with Rep. Schumer's latest outrage, in the form of H.R. 2580. I append it for your interest and action, in its entirety, exactly as it came to me from Thomas. There is no need for me to comment further because the bloody thing speaks for itself. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------- Begin Chuckie's latest fantasy ------------------- FILE h2580.ih HR 2580 IH 104th CONGRESS 1st Session To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by preventing paramilitary violence. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 2, 1995 Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by preventing paramilitary violence. [Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [<-Italic] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) section 4 of article IV of the Constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government to the States; (2) organized criminal actions are an increasing threat to the republican form of government in some States; (3) people who are responsible for upholding the laws of the United States and the several States, or people who assist them, have been threatened, harassed, and assaulted because of these activities; (4) this violence is having a chilling effect on the democratic process because Americans are afraid to participate in town hall meetings, express their views publicly, or take part in the political process; (5) most victims are targeted solely because of their views or activism on controversial political issues such as gun control, abortion, environmental matters, or the role of government in society; (6) this violence is causing a breakdown of law and order in many parts of the United States; (7) this violence has increased in part because of unfounded exaggerations about the impact of recent firearms laws such as the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons, as well as baseless conspiracy theories regarding the government; and (8) the climate of violence created by these criminals threatens to undermine republican government in some States. SEC. 3. PROTECTION AGAINST ASSAULT. Section 111(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `who is an officer or employee of any State or local government, is assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of official duty, or is' after `any person'; and (2) in paragraph (2), by striking `designated in section 1114' and inserting `described in paragraph (1)'. SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES. (a) ASSAULT- Section 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended (1) in subsection (a), by striking `shall, where' and all that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting `shall be punished as is provided in subsection (b)'; and (2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows: `(b) PENALTIES- Whoever is convicted of an offense under this section shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 2 nor more than 3 years, except that-- `(1) in the case of a second or subsequent offense the maximum term or imprisonment shall be not more than 5 years; and `(2) in the case of an offense committed with a deadly weapon, the offender shall be imprisoned not less than 8 nor more than 10 years.'. (b) EXTORTION AND THREATS- (1) INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS- Section 875 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in subsection (c), by striking `not more than five years, or both' and inserting `not less than 2 nor more than 5 years'. (2) MAILING THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS- Section 876 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the third undesignated paragraph, by striking `not more than five years, or both' and inserting `not less than 2 nor more than 5 years'. SEC. 5. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT; ENFORCEMENT. (a) REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHT- Each person not otherwise disqualified, barred, or disabled by State or Federal law shall have the right to participate in a republican form of State government free from interference from unlawful violence and the reasonably perceived threat of unlawful violence. (b) RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE DEFINED- As used in subsection (a), the term `right to participate in a republican form of State government' means the right to-- (1) carry out the duties of a State, county, or local office to which the person has been duly elected or appointed; (2) lawfully assist any duly elected or appointed person described in paragraph (1) in carrying out such duties; (3) run for elective office, campaign for such office on one's own behalf, or campaign on behalf of another's candidacy, in accordance with applicable State and local laws; (4) initiate and campaign for any initiative, referendum, petition, or similar political exercise, in accordance with applicable State and local laws; (5) assemble peaceably to petition the Federal, State, or local government, or to attend any public forum concerning such Federal, State, or local government; and (6) exercise the rights guaranteed under article IV of the Constitution of the United States, and the 1st and 14th amendments thereto. (c) ENFORCEMENT- (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated by any person or organization may bring an action in any United States district court against such other person or organization for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. (2) GOVERNMENT REMEDY- The chief executive officer of any State may bring an action in any United States district court located within that State for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate against any organization wherever located which unlawfully violates or which conspires, attempts, aids, or abets another person or organization to unlawfully violate the right under subsection (a) of any resident of that State. (3) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1) or (2), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. (4) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) or (2) after the 5-year period that begins with the date that the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered. SEC. 6. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretaries of Treasury, Agriculture, and the Interior, shall develop and implement a training program for Federal law enforcement personnel to enable such personnel to deal more effectively with politically motivated violence. SEC. 7. FEDERAL PAYMENTS WITHHELD. (a) COMPLAINT- If an agency determines that in any county any of that agency's employees or agents is being unlawfully physically prevented or impeded, by employees or agents of a State, county, or local government, from carrying out lawful duties, the agency may file a complaint with the Attorney General. (b) ESCROW- The Attorney General shall investigate the complaint, and if the Attorney General finds the complaint is meritorious, the Attorney General may place in escrow any payments that otherwise would be made to that county under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), until such time as the Attorney General is satisfied that such interference has ceased. (c) RULES- The Attorney General shall make rules governing the procedures used to carry out this section. - --------------------- End of Chuckie's latest fantasy -------------------- ------------------------------ From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 13:14:43 -0600 Subject: from leaders: Update #5 W/Sample article from upcoming Summer issue Hi I don't normally forward stuff that bounces because the people are not on ROC themselves or it bounces for other reasons and it appears to be some sort of mass mailing. However, the following was interesting and I suggest reading it. regards Chad ROC maintainer >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:57:29 -0600 (MDT) >From: owner-roc@xmission.com >To: owner-roc@mail.xmission.com >Subject: BOUNCE roc: Header field too long (>1024) > >>From roc-owner@mail.xmission.com Thu Jul 25 12:57:00 1996 >Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by >mail.xmission.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id MAA06771 for >; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:56:56 -0600 (MDT) >From: Leaders@aol.com >Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15806; Thu, 25 Jul >1996 14:52:05 -0400 >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:52:05 -0400 >Message-ID: <960725145205_245603268@emout08.mail.aol.com> >Subject: Update #5 W/Sample article from upcoming Summer issue > >*************************************************** > THE LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, DRAFTING, > EDITING AND RESEARCH SERVICE > (LEADERS) > P.O. Box 3245; Frederick, MD 21705 > >=====PUBLISHER OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP MAGAZINE===== > >301-293-0001 Leaders@aol.com >301-759-1010 Leader Mag@aol.com > http://logoplex.com/shops/leaders/ >*************************************************** > >American Leadership Net-A-Thon, Update #5 > >Previous remaining amount needed: 8,900 >2 Boxes (J.S., NH) 250 >Ad ("The Murder of Vince Foster" by Mike Kellett) 500 > (12.95 +2.50 S&H) Order from LEADERS >Total remaining amount needed: 8,150 > >The complete text of an article from the upcoming summer issue >of American Leadership follows. > >(You folks are getting the jump on the rest of the patriot >world. Only those on either TAB or Liberty-and-Justice lists, >and those on the primary LEADERS e-mail list, are receiving >these samples.) > > >> Between now and August 1, 1996, LEADERS will post >>daily reports to our friends on the various `majordomo' >>list servers updating the fundraising progress. Since we don't >>have Jerry Lewis and a major network behind us, this was the >>best alternative we could come up with. >> All we want to do is sell out our remaining stock of the >>Spring issue, and take pre-publication orders for the Summer >>edition. 135 FRN's will deliver a box of 200 (+ or - 2%) magazines >>to your door (shipping is included). Sell them, give them to your >>local legislators, pass them around at patriot meetings, at church, >>give them to school history teachers, libraries, etc. >> To order a box (or more) of American Leadership magazines, >>call 301-293-0001, or e-mail your order to: LEADERS@aol.com >> Then mail your check, money order or cash to: LEADERS; >>P.O. Box 3245; Frederick, MD 21701. Orders for the Spring issue >>will be shipped immediately. Summer orders will be shipped when >>delivered from the printer. >> We have succeeded thus far in raising 1,280 FRN's! But we >>have a long way to go. BEFORE AUGUST 1, 1996, we need to raise >>8,150 more to pay for production costs. Every box sold is one >>step closer. In reality, we only need to sell 60 more boxes to >>be over the top! By a box for the sake of liberty! >> Thanks for the help! > >The following article demonstrates one legislative area where >parents and patriots alike need to get involved. What goes on >in schools today? Please read this one, from a legislator in >California . . . > > > ON EDUCATION > > ABUSE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM > By California Assemblyman Steve Baldwin > > As Chairman of the Assembly Education Committee, I often >receive complaints from parents all over California regarding our >public schools. One of the most common complaints is the use of >highly inappropriate games, programs, and exercises that utilize >psychological concepts. This approach reflects a new trend in >education in which educators see themselves more as psychologists >and counselors rather than teachers. Indeed, in certain academic >circles the premise that all children start school mentally ill >seems to be gaining ground. One prominent child development >expert, Dr. Chester Pierce of Harvard University said this: > "Every child in America who enters school at the age of five >is mentally ill, because he comes to school with an allegiance to >our institutions, toward the preservation of this form of >government that we have. Patriotism, nationalism and sovereignty, >all that proves that children are sick because a truly well >individual is one who has rejected all of those things and is >truly the international child of the future." > Some of these programs are called "wellness" programs, "at- >risk' programs, or "intervention" programs. But the students >targeted aren't special education students; they are normal >students in normal classrooms. And the people administering these >programs aren't psychologists but are teachers. In fact, the >complaints have become so commonplace that professional >psychologists have approached the legislature with legislative >proposals prohibiting teachers from using psychological techniques >without a license. Most of the parent complaints revolved around >the following psychological programs: > >* Life/death Games. Lifeboat is amongst the most common of what >they call life-death games. In this game a child is forced to >write essays or verbalize about a traumatizing situation usually >killing of family members. In Lifeboat, for example, a child is >asked to identify which parents should be thrown overboard to the >sharks due to a dwindling food supply. The child usually is asked >to write an essay as to why they chose to kill that particular >parent. > >* Group Therapy. This usually involves removing small groups of >children from classrooms to other rooms in the school and having >them hold hands and share feelings about various topics such as >parents, divorce, sexual habits, etc. The most common game is one >where each child shares a family secret and is urged to think of >the group as a new family. Clearly, this undermines family >authority. > >* Psychological Testing. These are tests which usually range from >50 to 100 questions regarding a child's beliefs, values, and >behavior. They involved highly inappropriate questions about sex, >suicide and one's value system. In some cases the answers from >such tests are then used by teachers to assess whether or not the >child has politically correct views. If not, the child may be >subjected to additional "behavioral conditioning" to meet the >school's definition of politically correct citizens. > >* Guided imagery. The two most popular Guided Imagery programs in >public schools are DUSA and PUMSY. Both contain highly >controversial new age techniques such as having children visualize >out of body experiences. > >* Self Esteem Programs. These programs, while well intentioned, >are designed to give students self esteem by using a number of >behavioral modification techniques. The problem is that it is not >only inappropriate, but there is not a shred of evidence that self >esteem programs work. The latest issue of Psychology Review >publishes results of a study of self esteem programs and found >that they do not work. The best self-esteem program is teaching >students basic skills! > >* Death Education. This involves reading and writing assignments >that focus on death and dying. Sometimes students are asked to >write "suicide" notes pretending they are going to kill >themselves. The theory is that if we desensitized students to >death, they will become better students. However, such >assignments also cause trauma at least two suicides in California >have been linked to "death education" assignments. > > In most cases, parents have no idea that such programs even >exist in schools, and indeed most schools do not have such >programs. But enough schools do that it is a cause for concern. >I recently submitted a variety of psychological programs from San >Diego area schools to Dr. Malcolm Mornson, a licensed education >psychologist. In his assessment of the material, he says, "Are >teachers who receive a 4 day training program capable of handling >these issues? Absolutely not . . . Too many of these issues are >usurping parental prerogatives. Teachers are empowered only to >act "in loco parentis." > Dr. Morrison concludes by saying the material is, "well- >intentioned, but a very dangerous approach. I suggest that the >teachers concentrate on doing what they do best--teaching basic >skills to children. Obviously, there are children with problems. >These should be handled, but certainly not by the classroom >teachers. We have an obligation to offer counseling services to >students, but as an adjunct to the classroom, not as part of it." > The amount of time we spend on teaching basic skills has >dwindled in the past 20 years. In some schools, partly due to the >shift to behavior based programs and exercises. And the results >are in--they are disastrous. Just a few months ago, the latest >results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAFP) >showed that California was dead last in the country in reading and >math scores. > Now that the Republicans have taken control of the State >Assembly and I have the honor of being Chairman of the Assembly >Education Committee, we will be holding hearings on the misuse of >psychology in the classrooms. Furthermore, there will legislation >introduced this session on this issue. Assemblyman George House >has introduced Assembly Bill 3188 prohibiting teachers from >practicing psychology, and Assemblyman Scott Baugh has introduced >Assembly Bill 2820, which expands the rights of parents to not >only be notified of such programs but exempt their children from >them. > ------------------------------ From: "Ken L. Holder" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:51:00 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Should gun owners vote Republican or Libertarian >From: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us >Subject: Should gun owners vote Republican or Libertarian >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 15:49:48 -0700 >To: ca-firearms@lists.best.com > >-------- Begin forwarded message ---------- >From: Joe Zychik >To: jzychik@pacificnet.net >Subject: Schulman/Zychik Debate - w/suprise ending Part 1 >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:38:54 -0700 > >[The debate, held on July 11, 1996, was between Joe Zychik editor of >the Zychik Chronicle and J. Neil Schulman, author of _Stopping Power: >Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns_. > >The aftermath of the debate will shock you - delightfully. > >The subject was: Should gun owners vote Republican or Libertarian? > >The debate was moderated by Steve Silver, Founding Member of the >Lawyers' Second Amendment Society. The moderator's comments are >not in the transcript. The transcript contains minor, inconsequential edits >for readability. A coin was flipped to see who would go first. Neil >Schulman won. ] > > >Schulman: I'm tempted to say that coin was flipped to see which one of >us is going to have to defend Bob Dole. But it comes to my job to argue >seriously why we must support the Republican candidate for the 1996 >presidential election. I could start off by saying that Bob Dole is making >my job real tough. > >About a year ago, Bob Dole was perfectly willing to come to an >NRA-organized Second Amendment conference in Washington, D.C., >and talk in support of the right to keep and bear arms. Bob Dole, also as >Senate majority leader, committed to repeal of the assault weapons ban >legislation that was passed as part of the Clinton anti-crime bill. > >The result which brought gun owners out to the polls in 1994 and made >Bob Dole Senate majority leader, in essence setting him up for this >presidential run. > >But here we have within the last 48 hours Bob Dole essentially saying, >"The assault weapons ban is old news, you know, people can get >virtually identical things anyway, so it's really not on the political map any >more, we don't need to discuss it." Now, if Bob Dole were still in the >Senate I would have to be very seriously concerned that this was >breaking a promise. But the fact is, Bob Dole is no longer Senate majority >leader. That job has now fallen to Trent Lott. As for candidate Bob Dole, >the question is still unanswered if such a bill were to reach his desk, >would he sign it? Tanya Mataksa of the NRA said the answer is "Yes." >Until and unless Bob Dole clarifies his position further to say that he will >not sign such a bill, I would say that our buy-sell indicator, if it were in >terms of a market, is still that Bob Dole is still on the market at a price we >can afford. > >If, however, he becomes any weaker on us, we're in trouble. If the >Republican National Convention nominates somebody on the order of a >Dan Lungren or a Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey to be his vice >presidential candidate, both who have done great damage to the rights >of gun owners from the Republican side, I would say we would be in a >position where we would have to consider whether we could afford >the Republican ticket. > >But here is the issue involved. It's very, very simple. Are we willing to >put up with four more years of William Blythe Jefferson Clinton in the >White House? If the answer is no, there is only one possible candidate >who could defeat him this election cycle, and that is Bob Dole. > >I would love it to be Harry Browne. Harry Browne has been somebody >I've admired for 20 years, and if anything were to sour me on the >Republican party, Harry Browne would be where I would put my >support. But the fact is, there isn't a realistic chance this side of God >coming down and, you know, putting his hand on Harry Browne's >shoulder and anointing him president, that Harry Browne is going to be >elected president in 1996. It just isn't a political possibility. > >If we had a parliamentary-type democracy in this country, third parties >would have power. Fourth parties would have power. Fifth parties >would have power. But the way it's set up in this country, because the >executive branch is separate and because of the electoral system that >is set up here, third parties are not designed to have any political power >in this country. And in fact that is the political reality. There is no >electoral technology that I know of which is capable of taking a third >party candidacy and putting him in the White House. That is a simple fact >that we have to live with. We have a two-party system, >Tweedledum-Tweedledumber, and that is our choice. > >The fact is, is that the Democratic nominee, the current sitting president, >William Blythe Jefferson Clinton, is the worst president from our point of >view that has ever existed in United States history. He has done >incredible damage to us in terms not only of the legislation which he has >managed to ram down our throats, but in terms of the perception that he >consistently puts forward that guns in the hands of private citizens are >a liability, rather than an asset in the war against crime. He has total >contempt for us. He knows he's not going to get our votes and so he >does everything he can to damage us. We would not do worse if it >were Charles Schumer in the White House, and we know how bad he >is. > >Bob Dole, right now, is moderately on our side. He is by no means a >strong candidate for the Second Amendment, but he is not our enemy. >And if I may quote an old mentor of mine, Robert Heinlein, "The choice is >rarely in politics between good and better, but between bad and >worse." And when it comes to bad and worse, there is no comparison >between Dole and Clinton. That is why I find myself endorsing the >Republican candidate for president, who just happens to be Bob Dole, >for the defeat of William Blythe Jefferson Clinton in 1996, for several >reasons. > >Number one, the president is going to appoint the federal judges who >will decide cases like Hickman v. Block. > >He will probably come up with a Supreme Court nomination during the >next four years, and we don't want that to be Clinton appointing the >justice who is going to vote to basically suspend the Second >Amendment. And there goes 10% of the Bill of Rights, and perhaps the >most important 10%. > >It will be the president who will be deciding whether to pursue the >Wassenaar agreement, which essentially is an international gun control >treaty which limits imports. > >And it will be the president who will basically decide whether or not to >sign the bill recognizing CCW licenses interstate, which will be very, >very important. > > > >(Applause) > > > >Zychik: Good evening. My name is Joe Zychik. I'm not a Republican, a >Democrat, or a Libertarian. However, this year I will vote for the >Libertarians because we are in a war for Liberty. And to win a war, >you must take the long view. So tonight, I'm going to ask you to let Bill >Clinton win the battle for the White House so that you can use your vote >to win the war for Liberty. > >And I'm going to ask you to vote for the Libertarians because the >Libertarians are a pro-Liberty party. They want an end to all gun control, >not just the ban on assault weapons. They want an end to all gun >licensing. They want this country to return to the Constitution as it was >written. Ladies and gentlemen, people tell you that to vote for the >Libertarians is to throw away your vote. >That's ridiculous. To vote for the Constitution is to invest your vote in >Liberty. To vote for anything less than the Constitution is to tell the >Republicans and to tell the Democrats that they can betray you, that they >can betray the Constitution, that they can betray the Second >Amendment, and get your vote anyway. So let's talk about winning >battles. Let's talk about winning a political war. > >The way you win a political war is not with the majority. The Libertarians >will not win this election. They will not win elections for at least the next >10 years. But they don't need to win elections. What they need is the >margin of victory. > >What they need is about 10% of the vote. There is no politician in this >country who can throw away 10% of the vote. > >What I am asking you to do is to invest your vote in Liberty to help the >Libertarian Party build an eventual 10% of the vote, thereby forcing the >Republicans and the Democrats to become a pro-Liberty party. > >Yes, what I'm asking you to do is to risk your vote. That's a very small >risk. There were people who went before us, the Colonists, the >Revolutionaries, who risked their lives for an opportunity for Liberty. >They didn't have a guarantee of winning. The odds are they could have >lost, or would have lost. They were up against the best army in the >world. But they risked their lives because they had an opportunity. They >had a chance for Liberty. What I'm asking you to do is to invest your >vote in a chance for Liberty. And that's the way you win. > >You don't win by helping anybody who betrays the Second Amendment. >You don't win by helping anybody who does not take the Constitution >seriously. You only win by fighting for your principles. You only win by >fighting for Liberty. You cannot win by telling the Republicans, "Yes, you >can betray me, but I will vote for you anyway." Because the day will >come when the Republicans will know, as they are finding out, that they >don't have to take your vote seriously. > >When Bob Dole killed the legislation to overturn the ban on assault >weapons, he did that because he was making a political judgment. His >political judgment was that he could betray you, he could sell out the >Constitution, he could sell out the Second Amendment, and you would >still walk into that voting booth and vote for him. And as long as you >walk into the voting booth and you vote Republican, then the >Republicans will know that they can betray you and get your vote >anyway. > >If you want Liberty, then you must vote for it. And you must make the >Republicans and the Democrats understand that you are serious about >Liberty. > >You won't get it this election. You won't get it next election. It's going to >take about 10 years. So what? This is a long battle. What you need to do >is you need to look at the long run, and you need to say, "I'm in a war, >not a battle. I'm here for Liberty, I'm here for freedom, not for less gun >control." > >And there's one thing you can be sure of. If you vote for the >Republicans, you will probably get less gun control than the Democrats >will give you. But one thing you can also be sure of is if you vote for >Liberty, if you vote for freedom, in the long run, you can win. Thank you >very much. > >(Applause) > >Schulman: What message will it send to the media, to the Democrats, to >the Republicans, and to the Libertarian Party, if in January of 1997, it is >William Blythe Jefferson Clinton raising his hand to be sworn in for >another four years? I assure you, it will not be a message to the >Republican Party that our concerns are important. > >What the message will be to them is the American people don't care >about this issue, that's why they reelected Clinton. > >If we are to have any power at all, we must have a realistic assessment >of what our possibilities are. I do not believe that a Libertarian Party, >which for 25 years has failed to make an impact in a presidential >election, can gain a foothold in politics running in a presidential election. >The Libertarian Party, if it is going to become a third party, has to do so >at the grassroots level, winning mayorships, winning congressional >seats, winning governorships, and winning a senate race. And then, >after they have a handful of congresspersons and a senator or two and > maybe a mayor of a few cities and maybe a governorship, then they'll >have a candidate to be taken seriously for president. And when they >reach that level, I would be out there supporting them to the best of my >ability because Joe is right, they are the future of Liberty in this country. > >However, if they cannot get to that point, there is an alternative strategy, >and that is a Libertarian caucus within the Republican Party itself. >Basically, you do the same thing that the Libertarian Party is, except you >organize within the Republican Party and you find Libertarian candidates >to run on the Republican ticket until you have a Libertarian Republican >caucus in Congress. At that point, you've got a power base to start >pushing the Liberty agenda. > >But the American system of government as it is right now does not >favor a third party gaining political power. It is not designed to do that; it >cannot do that, and by supporting a third party, you are not advancing >Liberty, you are simply advancing a spoiler who will make sure that the >worst of the two bad parties remains in power. > >What the Libertarian vote does, if the Libertarians gain significant >victories, is assure that the more statist, the more anti- >Liberty of the two parties will always remain in power. It divides us. It is >divide and conquer. And we must unite in order to be victorious. > >I am not happy that we do not have a great Libertarian candidate to vote >for this time around. God knows, I wish we had Ronald Reagan to vote >for again. It would be great if we had somebody at least of his stature, >and he wasn't perfect. We don't have that choice. Our choice right now >is between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and its two >standard bearers who will be the leadership of that party. > >But let me give you a danger that is crucial here. If William Blythe >Jefferson Clinton wins the presidency again, there is the possibility that >our gains in 1994 will be lost. We will lose the Congress as well. This is >a risk I do not think we can tolerate. We need to send the following >message to the Republicans loudly: > >Number one, you can't win without us, so you better start taking us >seriously, and you better do it now. So I argue that we must support >Dole. > >And two: We must get on his case and put his feet to the fire and make >sure he takes us seriously. > >(Applause) > >Zychik: What Neil is suggesting to you is that you vote for the lesser of >two evils. So let's talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, and let's >see exactly where that takes you. History is showing it to you. I want to >talk to you about Adolf Hitler. > >Adolf Hitler did not overthrow the German government violently. Adolf >Hitler won the election. How did he win? He didn't win on his >anti-Semitism. Most of the Jews in Germany didn't even take his >anti-Semitism seriously. He won because compared to the communists, >he was the lesser of two evils. And people went into the booths and >they voted for Adolf Hitler to keep the communists out. And you know >what? They got what they voted for. They got the lesser of two evils, >because if you compare the evil of communism to the evil of Hitler's >Germany, it's very clear that the evil of communism is far worse than the >evil of Hitler's Germany. > >Ladies and gentlemen, if you continue to walk into a voting booth and >you vote for the lesser of two evils, the day will come when you will be >confronted with an equivalent of an Adolf Hitler and the equivalent of a >Joseph Stalin. And Bill Clinton is not too far from Stalin. > >The fact of the matter is this: If you want Liberty, then walk into a voting >booth and vote for it. Don't let the Republicans intimidate you into getting >you to give them your vote even though they betray you. Fact: >Legislation was passed in the House of Representatives to overturn the >ridiculous ban on assault weapons. Fact: Bob Dole killed that legislation. > >Fact: Bob Dole killed that legislation because he made a political >evaluation. He bet. His bet was that he could betray you and get your >vote anyway. And as Neil said, you must show the Republicans that >they cannot betray you, that they cannot take you for granted. Well, Ha! >Ha! Ha! How are you going to show the Republicans that they can't take >you for granted if every year you walk into the voting booth and vote for >them anyway? > >If you want to show the Republicans that they can't take you for >granted, then vote Libertarian. Vote for the party that will not take you >for granted. Vote for the party that is pro-Liberty. Don't wait. Don't wait >until they have a governor and two senators and a mayor. Vote for them >now and help them get that governor, help them get that senator, help >get those mayors. Invest in your Liberty. It's really as simple as that. A >vote today is a vote for Liberty. A vote next year is a vote for Liberty. >And every time you vote for Liberty, you pass the word, and you tell >other people and you encourage them to vote for Liberty. And that is >how you win a war. > >You win a war politically with a small margin of voters, that is all you >need. Bill Clinton won by 3%. If 4% of the pro-gunners had went and >voted for--I'm sorry, if 4% of the vote was pro-gun and had voted for >the Libertarians, you can bet that both the Democrats and the >Republicans would be singing a pro-gun song to get your vote. > >This is nothing more than welfare. What the Democrats and Republicans >are asking you for is something for nothing. They want to give you >nothing and get something in return. They want to give you less gun >control than the next guy. That is not Liberty. That is not something. >Something is an end to all gun control laws. Something is an end to all >registration. Something is an ending, an overturning, an abolishing of the >1968 Gun Control Act. It's calling for an end, an immediate dissolving of >the BATF. That's where you stand. That's where the Libertarians stand. >And now it takes an act of courage on your part to simply walk into a >voting booth and risk your vote. Risk your vote for Liberty. > >It is far wiser to risk your vote for Liberty than to throw it away for less >gun control than the Democrats are offering you. That is no deal. That is >no wonderful situation for you. That doesn't secure your right to keep >and bear arms. All it does is, it secures the Republicans in their decision >to nominate somebody like Bob Dole, who's nothing more than a gun >grabber in the Republican party. That is all he is. And it tells the >Republicans that they can continue to nominate gun grabbers and get >your vote anyway. > >If you want Liberty, hey--vote for it. Thank you very much. > >(Applause) > > >Joe Zychik >Editor, The Zychik Chronicle http://www.pacificnet.net/~jzychik >To receive the ZC free, contact: jzychik@pacificnet.net >"All rights are individual." > > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- > > > ------------------------------ End of roc Digest V2 #34 ************************ To subscribe to roc Digest, send the command: subscribe roc-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-roc": subscribe roc-digest local-roc@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "roc-digest" in the commands above with "roc". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/roc/archive. These are organized by date.