From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #49 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, January 21 1998 Volume 02 : Number 049 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:34:36 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > What do we know about the American Constitution Party? > What exactly do they advocate? > > My theory is that there is tremendous resentment against the > U.S. tax system and the R's have demonstrated their incompetency > in reforming it. Whoever can latch onto this issue most > effectively can win the 2000 election hands down. Abolish > the I.R.S., put in a sales tax that totally replaces income > tax on earned and unearned income. I don't think that > we are capable of reforming the income tax code, as too many > pointy bureaucrats and lawyers and CPA's are involved. Throw > it out totally. > > Restoring the Constitution is a little too abstract for most > people, but whoever can demonstrate movement towards *real* > tax reform is going to capture enormous momentum. > > It will be fun watching Republican "moderates" arguing for > little baby reforms (like the last one they just blew) while > the American people work out their outrage and elect somebody > else (most probably a "radical" Republican who sweeps Iowa > and N.H., then welcomes outlying parties to join in the fun). > > [one can always dream]. > > > > > > - > > I'm no fan of our IRS but there's just no easy way to fund a multitrillion-dollar a year monster. I think people would evade a 45% sales tax like crazy, necessitating .... something very like the IRS, except dedicated to enforcing the sales tax. Some states already have "use" taxes on things bought without sales taxes and a few even have inspection programs to enforce them. Expect lots more inspections of businesses and homes if we go to a national sales tax. However, I am happy that Coors is giving brand-R a hotfoot. bd (Reuters) Tax group to spend millions on sales tax campaign WASHINGTON (January 15, 1998 10:13 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - - A tax group said Thursday it will launch a multimillion dollar media campaign next week to gather public support for its plan to replace the current income tax with a national sales tax. Americans For Fair Taxation planned to start a media blitz Jan. 19 with television and newspaper advertisements. The group has already spent about $5 million on market research and development of its proposal and planned to spend up to $10 million more on a media campaign. Individual sponsors of the non-profit group included Hugh McColl, chief executive officer of NationsBank; Kenneth Lay, chairman and chief executive at Enron Corp.; Peter Ueberroth, former major league baseball commissioner, and Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. The proposal would eliminate the current income and payroll taxes and replace them with a 23 percent national tax on goods and services. "It is a plan that allows you to keep your whole paycheck," said Grover Jackson, president of the tax group. To ensure that the poor would not be hurt, the plan would rebate to everyone, based on the size of the family, an amount of money designed to account for the tax that would be paid on food and other essentials. [...] House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, a Texas Republican who for years has favored a national sales tax, supports the "concept and direction" of the Americans For Fair Taxation proposal, a spokesman said. The tax group formed in May 1995 based in Archer's congressional district of Houston. Jackson said Archer and a number of Democrat and Republican lawmakers were briefed on the plan, but "Archer did not generate this, this is not his plan. He didn't ask us to do it." Critics of the plan said a higher sales tax rate than 23 percent would be needed to replace the current income tax. "It is a non-starter, it is not a serious alternative, it is a fantasy," said William Gale, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution. He said the group's national sales tax was in reality a 30 percent tax because of the way it is calculated and that to replace the current income, corporate, estate and payroll taxes a rate of 29 percent would be needed. "That's just a flat rate on consumption. If you did that you would wallop the poor," Gale said. To pay for the proposed rebate the sales tax rate would have to increase to about 45 percent, he said. Gale also said the political reality was that some sort of exemptions would be added to a national sales tax. "The flat tax remains the most interesting and intriguing fundamental tax reform that would be possible to build on," Gale said. [...] The sales tax would also tax services not currently taxed such as a visit to the doctor or the dentist, Motley said. "That's a huge political fight," he added. "If the American people are confused and think the cost is going to go up, they're going to stop buying everything but essentials," Motley said. "We're terribly concerned about ... the transition period." - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:08:15 -0800 From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) >Skip, I was Forbes 3rd biggest fan in my state. At the time the chair of my >gop district and myself were rooting for Steve in a -big- way, when most of >the other staffers in the district were split behind others and saw no way >Forbes could win. When the Washington state coordinator announced on KVI >radio that buttons were available at his chirocproctic office in Bellevue, >Faye called me at work and we both met down there in only about 30 minutes, >alas to late for any of the materials. >But Steve has changed. He's gone from someone with an incredible depth of >understanding of economics and public policy to this wider broader >coalitioned (whiter brighter) "stop the drugs" guy. I know a lot of folks >here think that's cool but I do not. I am -extremely- disappointed in his >change wich I think he projects as a Principled sort of "move to the >middle". Unfortunately, endorsing the War on some Drugs and some of his >more classically conservative stands have made him less pro freedom in my >book. >I still have hope for him, I still have one solitary Forbes 96 button that >I'd like to take out of the closet. But I'm not going to get enthusiastic >about a pro freedom candidate untill someone comes along who understands >that it's about all our freedoms all of the time. >Boyd Kneeland Very well put, Boyd. I personally left the Republican party many years ago, when it became very apparent to me how far to the left they'd drifted. And that was a long time ago. I currently have no party affiliation, but I have to say that the USTP is the only one out there with whom I have 100% agreement in philosophy/beliefs. I am delighted to see Mr. Coors headed in the right direction. - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:19:14 -0800 From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) > Skip, > > RE: Forbes. He's my man. I like everything he > says, with the sole exception of some of the gold > standard stuff, which sounds like rather antiquated > economics to me. I think he is misguided on gold, > but not unprincipled. > > He has passed my sincerity test, as he is a somewhat > awkward rich kid who has got derided by public and > commentators and he is still coming back. > > His flat tax proposal is right on. Yeah, gotta agree with you here. If I'm gonna get stolen from by a bunch of rich fedreserve bankers, I'd rather it be in the form of a flat tax than by having to fill out all those forms. And actually, those rich bankers *deserve* to have 17% of my income, or whatever, because I'm just a fat dumb & happy American that doesn't have a clue. The fact that none of the money collected in the biggest scam in the history of civilization goes for *anything* except paying off an illegal and immoral debt to a bunch of rich people never even enters my so-called brain. Pass me that beer, will ya Jim? > I'm trying to > talk my wife into hosting a Steve Forbes coffee here in > scenic Southern New Hampshire. We were involved with > Lamar Alexander in '96 as campaign hanger-ons. If I > can't switch her allegiance to Forbes, I'm going to ask > for equal time! > > I don't really think any serious tax reformer can win > easily, but I do think that there is a lot of sleeping > power in the issue and Forbes looks like the guy with > enough berries to fight the good fight. By golly, yer right. I wonder how many of those banksters he knows personally. Thank God he's on *our* side! > > g. Bush Jr, Lamar, Forbes, buchanan - take a look at these > guys - > > bush Jr. - professional moderate R and all around > typical politico > > lamar - smart guy, $500k/yr lawyer, can't tell us why > he's running, parrots moderate R > party line > > buchanan - former political commentator, very funny > and bright guy, not above bowing to the > Nazi's among us (and they are out there). > he's got a good gig going, never going to > be President and he knows it. > > dan quayle - know nothing low-level political jerk > who worked his way above his abilities > > > Forbe's big minus: goofy looking, son of a rich guy, > dad was gay, has vestiges of acne, > doesn't project as an alpha male. > > His big plus: has *absolutely* the right ideas, could spark > an American renaissance. he's sincere about > helping the country and he's got a plan. No where > near as crazy as Perot. > > Two words for each of the rest: > > Dan Quayle: missing mind > Lamar: deceptive lawyer > Buchanan: closet fascist > Bush Jr: white bread > > > > jack curtis Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 17:52:19 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) On Jan 19, John Curtis wrote: > > What do we know about the American Constitution Party? > What exactly do they advocate? > > My theory is that there is tremendous resentment against the > U.S. tax system and the R's have demonstrated their incompetency > in reforming it. Whoever can latch onto this issue most > effectively can win the 2000 election hands down. Abolish > the I.R.S., put in a sales tax that totally replaces income > tax on earned and unearned income. I don't think that > we are capable of reforming the income tax code, as too many > pointy bureaucrats and lawyers and CPA's are involved. Throw > it out totally. > > Restoring the Constitution is a little too abstract for most > people, but whoever can demonstrate movement towards *real* > tax reform is going to capture enormous momentum. > > It will be fun watching Republican "moderates" arguing for > little baby reforms (like the last one they just blew) while > the American people work out their outrage and elect somebody > else (most probably a "radical" Republican who sweeps Iowa > and N.H., then welcomes outlying parties to join in the fun). > > [one can always dream]. The problem I see with a Sales Tax is that they promote Black Markets. A Straight Head Tax on the other hand, is not subject to this, or Income Level Class Warfare games. Yeah, Restoring The Constitution can be a little abstract for some folks, but I regard the combination as a definite plus. I think the rush to join one Party or the other is a bit premature, but several possibilities are there. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:46:57 -0800 From: Liberty or Death Subject: Tyson Chicken / China Virus / Clinton Hey - A coupla weeks ago somebody posted a thing or two about how Tyson Chicken had recently made a deal with China to supply chickens to them. Which, of course, with the fact that they'd just slaughtered all their chickens over a virus that had only killed 6 people, combined with the Clinton - Tyson connection, combined with the Clinton - China connection looked just a tad suspicious. Can anybody verify that Tyson Chicken did indeed land such a deal with China? For real? Thanks, journalistically speaking... - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:31:57 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Is Congress Passing Unconstitutional Laws? >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 01:01:07 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Is Congress Passing Unconstitutional Laws? > >Is Congress Passing >Unconstitutional Laws? >by Larry Pratt >of Gun Owners of America > >Much of this century has been a time when the federal government >has ignored the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution. Recent >cases decided by the Supreme Court indicate that the Justices are >beginning to once again take the Constitution and their oath of >officeseriously. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in the recent >Lopezcase, "our case law has drifted far from the original understanding >..."of the Constitution. > >While there were wrong turns before this century, much of the >unconstitutional rule from Washington dates back to the Great >Depression and its war on crime and war on the bank crisis. There >were many unconstitutional theories of government pursued to justify >the power grab by Washington. One of the theories was to run an >end run around constitutional limitations by entering into a treaty that >would require passage of legislation accomplishing what, without the >treaty, would have been unconstitutional. > >President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration was an active >participant in the Disarmament Conference of 1934. Roosevelt >sought Senate ratification of an Arms Traffic Convention but was >unsuccessful. Had the treaty been ratified, Roosevelt would have >obtained the alleged authority to have Congress infringe on the right >to keep and bear arms pursuant to the treaty powers of Article VI, >paragraph 2. > >Roosevelt then shifted to the unconstitutional, non-existent doctrine >of emergency powers to justify enactment of gun control at the >federal level. Calling for a War on Crime and Gangsters, Roosevelt >persuaded Congress to pass a series of bills federalizing various >crimes and compelling the registration of machine guns and >sawed-off shotguns and rifles. The formula "War on Whatever" >became a decades long federal government weapon for usurping >powers not delegated to it. > >Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress >the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation >-- not even in a national emergency. One reads the Constitution in >vain for such a delegation of authority by "We, the People" through >the several states. Very instructive on this point are the Kentucky >Resolutions of 1798 which were written by Thomas Jefferson. > >The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal to >criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). Kentucky and Virginia >passed resolutions declaring the the national law was unenforceable in >their state. > >These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the Kentucky >resolutions: > >...whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, >its acts are > >unauthoritative, void, and of no force .... that the government >created by this compact was not > >made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers >delegated to itself; ...each party > >has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the >mode and measure of > >redress. > >Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime >delegated to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) >counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 3) >piracies and 4) offenses against the law of nations. In this context, >Jefferson cited the Tenth Amendment as providing a limit to any >expansion of authority for punishing crime by the federal >government. He quoted it verbatim in the Kentucky resolutions: "the >powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor >prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, >or to the people." > >Jefferson addressed an argument in the Kentucky Resolutions that >we still hear to this day. Namely, that Congress has the authority to >pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for doing >whatever it does. Jefferson described this abuse of the "necessary >and proper" clause as going, to the destruction of all limits prescribed >to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument >to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to >be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be >so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument... > >A parallel argument is derived from the "supremacy" clause of >Article VI. This clause makes treaties and laws passed by Congress >the supreme law of the land. Jefferson is pointing out that the federal >government is not empowered to take the limited powers it has been >granted and convert them to unlimited powers that would destroy >the nature of the Constitution. Similarly, the "general welfare" clause >in Article I Section 8 can hardly be a grant of unlimited power of >action for the Congress since the section is one limiting the powers of >Congress. Jefferson made this particular argument in his opinion against >the national bank in 1791. > >It is the Commerce Clause that has become the most popular pillar >of unconstitutional authority for federal gun control. It is interesting >to note that in the early part of the twentieth century it was >considered necessary to amend the Constitution to ban alcoholic >beverages. After the bloating of the Commerce Clause to justify federal >involvement in anything and everything following the key 1946 Supreme >Court decision Wickard v.Filburn, it was not felt to be necessary to >amend the constitution to infringe something specifically named and >protected -- like arms -- in the Constitution. > >It is important to understand that the word regulate was applied to >commerce in the sense of making regular rather than controlling. In >an early case where the Commerce Clause was at issue, Justice >Marshall in the Gibbons steamboat case, noted that had the Clause >been intended to affect all economic activity, it would not have been >included in the enumerated, or limited, powers section of Article 1, >Section 8. Thus, the Commerce Clause affects interstate trade which >involves more than one state. The idea was that Virginia could not >tax Maryland tobacco to the point that it was kept out of its >Commonwealth, and similarly, so that Maryland could not do the >same. > >Justice Thomas put it this way in his Lopez opinion; "...the power to >regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over >mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal >Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, >throughout the 50 states. Our Constitution quite properly leaves >such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' >effects on interstate commerce." > >Thomas went on to explain that, as an enumerated power, the >Commerce Clause of Article 1 Section 8 cannot be used to justify a >universal police power of the federal government: > > > >After all, if Congress may regulate all matters that substantially >affect commerce, there is no need for the Constitution to specify that >Congress may enact bankruptcy laws, cl. 4, or coin money and fix >the standard of weights and measures, cl.5, or punish counterfeiters >of United States coin and securities .... Put simply, much if not all of >Art.1, Sec.8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) >would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over >matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An >interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of Sect. 8 superfluous >simply cannot be correct. > >To put it another way, the Court is now saying that they believe that >the Tenth Amendment has to be observed. As Joe Sobran put it in a >column in The Washington Times (May 30, 1995): "From now on, >the court will be debating basic principle. The federal government >will have to walk through the 10th Amendment." > >In the Wickard case, the Supreme Court agreed with the argument >that even though farmer Filburn's wheat was not purchased nor sold >in interstate commerce, the very fact that he did not enter interstate >commerce negatively affected interstate commerce. With this totalitarian >view of the reach of government, there was no limit to what the federal >government could do. In many areas of social life, using this distorted >interpretation of the Commerce Clause, >Congress stepped up its suffocation of many kinds of private >activity. Firearms were no exception. > >Finally, in the 1995 Lopez decision, the Court has begun to return to >constitutional government. Lopez was arrested at a Texas school for >having a gun and thus violating the federal prohibition on having a >firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court held that whatever >the policy merits of the measure, the Congress had no authority to >enact such a law. > >(Regarding the policy issue, the most constitutionally consistent >approach would be to make it illegal to have a gun at a school for >the purpose of committing a violent crime. This would put the >burden on the criminal by, in effect, adding an additional penalty to >whatever other violent crime was committed. The burden would not >go on the decent people, such as students who target practice with >teams, parents who are going to or from hunting, and teachers and >other adults who have a concealed carry permit for self-defense. >Such a policy also assumes that criminals will violate any law that we >pass, so the law should target only criminal behavior, and not >criminalize good behavior.) > >A proper understanding of the Commerce Clause indicates that the >most the federal government can do in the firearms area is to keep >one state from using taxation to adversely treat firearms which are >made in another state and are for sale in the first state. As Justice >Thomas put it in his opinion concurring with the majority in the >Lopez case, the central issue of the wrong turn by the Court over >the last 50 years was not being addressed head-on in Lopez, but it >needs to be soon. > >If the Court were to be consistently constitutional, all federal gun >control legislation, starting with Roosevelt's 1934 National Firearms >Act, would be thrown out. This could actually happen in view of the >five federal courts which have now held another federal gun control >law to be unconstitutional on similar grounds to that of Lopez. Five >sheriffs have sued successfully under the Tenth Amendment holding >that Washington had no authority to force them to carry out a >background check under the Brady Law. This argument points right >back to Article 1, Section 8 where we have already found that there >is no authority given to the federal government for gun control >legislation. > >If the United States is to return to a lawful, constitutional national >government, one of the sure signs of that return will be the removal of >the decades-long imposition of federal gun laws. > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:15:10 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) Skip, [...] His proposal is flat tax, same for everyone, no mortgage deduction and no other fat-cat loopholes, . . . [...] While I agree in principle, I do not agree in fact as to a flat tax. And, while we may not agree as to what kind of tax may be needed - or even necessary - we should understand that the genesis of most of our problems with the United States (ie., Washington, D.C.) begin with _any_ tax. Money _is_ power. The ability to tax is the ability to enslave/oppress. Any tax that is collected must be limited by Constitutional restrain as to quantity, and duration as to collection. I've said it before here, that when congress has the ability to dabble in monetary matters of any significance, it invariably wanders down primrose lane dragging us along for the miserable ride. Mr. Forbes may be an honorable man, but like any other politician, once he gets in office, there's no limiting what he's likely to do - no matter what he may have promised. Us libertarians have a saying: Government? How much, and for what? Paraphrasing, we can ask: Taxation? How much, and for how long? Our first order of business for Mr./Ms. Office Holder aught be, to initiate a Constitutional amendment which limits the ceiling on _any_ tax, and the duration of that tax, as well as the ultimate tax ceiling of all taxes combined - federal and state. Limit the money, limit the power. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:12:32 -0800 From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) You said it right, ET. It amazes me the people who think stealing from them via a flat tax is better than stealing from them with a 1040. I spoze it's less hassle, but it's still stealing, still unconstitutional, and still feeding the beast. - - Monte > Skip, > > [...] > His proposal is flat tax, same for everyone, >no mortgage deduction and no other fat-cat loopholes, . . . > [...] > > While I agree in principle, I do not agree >in fact as to a flat tax. > And, while we may not agree as to what kind of tax >may be needed - or even necessary - we should understand >that the genesis of most of our problems with the United >States (ie., Washington, D.C.) begin with _any_ tax. > Money _is_ power. The ability to tax is >the ability to enslave/oppress. > Any tax that is collected must be limited by >Constitutional restrain as to quantity, and duration as to >collection. > I've said it before here, that when congress has >the ability to dabble in monetary matters of any significance, >it invariably wanders down primrose lane dragging us along >for the miserable ride. > Mr. Forbes may be an honorable man, but like any >other politician, once he gets in office, there's no limiting >what he's likely to do - no matter what he may have promised. > Us libertarians have a saying: > Government? How much, and for what? > Paraphrasing, we can ask: Taxation? How much, >and for how long? > Our first order of business for Mr./Ms. Office Holder >aught be, to initiate a Constitutional amendment which limits >the ceiling on _any_ tax, and the duration of that tax, as well >as the ultimate tax ceiling of all taxes combined - federal and >state. > Limit the money, limit the power. > >ET > > > > >- > > > - - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:28:21 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Coors is outa here! (fwd) >> I don't really think any serious tax reformer can win >> easily, but I do think that there is a lot of sleeping >> power in the issue and Forbes looks like the guy with >> enough berries to fight the good fight. > >By golly, yer right. I wonder how many of those banksters he knows >personally. Thank God he's on *our* side! > Hey Monte, when you finish overthrowing the currency and the Fed reserve and the irs, drop me a postcard so I don't pay any extra taxes! Thanks. My guess is whatever forces are at work undermining either don't have anything with what you and I think. If you think you can do it by politicing, good luck!! Wonder how well Roman citizen's did asking their Senate to please stop boning them. My rule for elections is: decide how likely it is that a guy is going to get elected and multiply by how likely it is that he is going to enact a tax cut (for me) and multiply by the extent of the tax cut (for me). Its nice and rational. Forbes could score pretty high. Conventional political establishment is kinda busy right now deciding how to divvy up the "surplus". Doesn't sound like tax cut season to me, yet. If you think that overthrowing banksters is what it is about, I think you ought to examine changing the currency you deal in and the location of the bankers and what rules they play by. You can do that right now. Just sidestep the whole thing. Swiss francs, offshore havens in the sunny Caribe or Europe, lira, deutche marks, zloty's, rupees, whatever. Who've got your choice - make it. If you want to stop paying taxes, just stop. Move offshore, do business there. find the best locale and do it. If you think the electoral process in the U.S. is going to do anything but work at the margin, you ought to re-evaluate. ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:38:29 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: OK city Grand Jury indictments - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jqp@inxpress.net Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:50:11 -0600 Subject: CAS: OKC: Heads up! Howe fingers 3 + implicates ATF agent advance release from the 1/19 issue of Washington Weekly: Oklahoma Grand Jury Expected To Hand Down Indictments Strassmeir, Mahon, and Ward Possible Targets By Wesley Phelan ATF informant Carol Howe has identified Andreas Strassmeir, Dennis Mahon, and Peter Ward as participants in the plot to bomb the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. She warned ATF agent Angela Finley of the plot in advance of the bombing. Oklahoma state Rep. Charles Key has worked to impanel a grand jury to hear evidence of a wider plot behind the bombing as well as advance government knowledge of this plot.... ========================================================================== 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 - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 98 10:45:33 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Ruling - Challenge to ugly gun ban (fwd) On Jan 21, Chuck Scanland wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From another list..... Chuck ============================================================ The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that FFLs, gunsmiths, and firearm manufacturers have standing to challenge Slick's ugly semi-auto ban. See the text at: http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov97/97a0345p.06.html This could be a major win for the good guys, folks. I predict the usual media handwringing... JMR [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:52:21 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: RE: Di Fi will not run (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:31:23 -0500 (EST) From: lews@wellsfargo.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: Di Fi will not run From: Stuart Mac Tavish <> On KCBS radio in San Francisco, there was also speculation that Fascist-stein might be a possible Democratic VP candidate on a Gore/Fienstein presidential ticket... (be afraid, be very, very afraid...) B^o - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:19:53 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Good cop bad cop, RE:Death Starr (fwd) My thoughts about the current Clinton sex scandal. > "I can say that the president was quite firm about me making that > statement," McCurry said. > > The presidential spokesman tried to portray a White House going about > its work in a normal fashion despite the sensational charges. He said > that the president's outrage over the charges quickly faded as he turned > to discussions with national security advisers about Iraq. Time for a war^^^^ > > After working as an intern at the White House, Lewinsky worked in the > public affairs department at the Pentagon along with Tripp. She left the ^^^^^^^^ Could this be the Military coup against Clinton? (Cut) > > I think something material I don't understand is going on re the latest on > Linda Tripp and Monica L re Ken Starr's OIC. (cut) > > Linda Tripp was only one of two Bush Administration holdovers who worked in > the WH for Clinton (that is obviously qualified in some way since many USSS > folks, the Travel Office folks, and others did) -- what Linda said was that > she was (in 1994) one of the only two indviduals still employed in the WH who > "worked for" the Bush Administration. . . . > > Thus, whatever her motives (for whatever she is doing) one possibility for at > least part of LRT's actions may be political -- though I am sure there are > others. . . > > Warm regards, > Hugh S. > (cut) > Found at a.ce.c.ww: > > For all these years I've kind of stood in awe of the Clinton Machine. > >From the early days when the War Room in Little Rock was fighting to > suppress those Bimbo Eruptions and facts about Clintons involvement in > war protests and draft dodging they've really impressed me with their > ability to either spin a story into meaninglessness or strong-arming > editors into keeping the story from ever appearing. > > For all these months that I've monitored these news groups I've watched > the real anti-Clinton zealots continually predict that 'indictments are > just around the corner'. And Clinton's defenders just laughed and > pointed to the opinion polls. (Cut) > > Kurt Nicklas > From: jqp@inxpress.net > Subject: Re: CAS: Another Convert > > > >So I'll predict that Bill Clinton will not serve out the rest of his > >term. I'll predict that he'll either resign under pressure or be removed > >from office. In either case, it'll be rough on the country(I remember > >Watergate). But we'll get over it. And maybe we'll look a little closer > >at the character of the man we elect in future. > > > > ... and sweep under the rug the retail dumping of > American "dual-use" technology, the U.S. Patent > database, and formerly critically important > classified information, to China and anyone > else who wanted to put a buck in the pocket > of an FOB. Bill Clinton has made treason just > another campaign fund raising scheme; that is > one of his real legacies. > > > - -- Someone wrote: > > >Then I wonder what kind of 'immunity' Tripp needed? > >I'm wondering if the folks investigating Paula Jones' case > >might have inadvertedly crossed paths with Starr's 'investigation', > >to the point that information uncovered by Jones' team > >would implicate Starr in a cover-up, thus forcing Starr's > >sudden interest in the Lewinsky angle. (cut) Whitewater, Clinton, Foster, Waco, China, Starr ect. The drug war and mafia and its incredible money machine have been rumored and hinted at behind all of these incredible scandals. We have had Senate, House, Judicial and media investigation of all of this. Each time I got my hopes up and each time it ended in another cover up with minor players getting minor sentences. The House hearings got close but died a fast death when they uncovered the Republicans and their possible dirty underwear. I have had all my money in money markets waiting for the big crash for 2 years as the Clintons march on. It sure looks like all of these formal hearings are nothing more than official cover ups to hide the real facts from the public. This is the classic good cop bad cop game. Why after, FBI files on the Republicans, missing files, Cattle futures, Health care task force cover ups, dead lawyers and Chinese Communist Bribes would a little old white house aide bring down the Whitehouse? Why and how can we explain all of these national security, and corruption being over looked to have a minor sex scandal make the press finally do their job. The press makes or breaks a scandal, why now? A. Its a military and or political coup? Just like Watergate was a set up to take down Nixon. She worked for Bush the ex-CIA head and foreign affairs expert president. She moved to the Pentagon. Clinton had allowed the Chinese to buy and sell things very bad for USA security. Clinton staff are talking about making it harder to launch a nuke and many other examples of dangerous security decisions. B. This is a way to take out Clinton and staff and not touch the Republican involvement with the Drug war and China stuff. It is a bipartisan or Democrat party decision to take him out for their own good. If its to good to be true then.... Paul Watson, Dallas - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #49 ************************