From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #59 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, February 2 1998 Volume 02 : Number 059 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 02:10:23 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: nice rant - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 8, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Second Amendment: changing of the guard Last time, we were discussing the "take-the-best-available-compromise," defeatist attitude of the nation's largest gun control organization, the National Rifle Association. Their lighter, leaner competition for gun owner support, Gun Owners of America, prefers a more high-pressure approach, putting the fire to the feet of lawmakers to make sure they know that a vote against gun rights will cost them their next election ... just as Bill Clinton acknowledged that the gun rights vote cost the Democratic Party its control of Congress in 1994. In a 1968 edition of the NRA's magazine, "The American Rifleman," Associate Editor Alan C. Webber responded to then-timely criticism by U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., who said "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to ban and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." To this, Mr. Webber reports NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth responded with a ringing endorsement of the 1968 Gun Control Act. "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871," Mr. Orth proclaimed. "The duty of Congress is clear. It should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles, from obtaining firearms through the mails." One will remember that the way the 1968 law accomplished that, was by banning EVERYONE but an ever-shrinking pool of federally licensed gun dealers from "obtaining firearms through the mails"! Sort of like "getting drunks off the road," by banning cars and trucks! "The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns, without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors," concludes editor Webber. What an interesting list. Do you see "militiamen" in there? I don't. Does the Second Amendment say anything about duck-hunting? The Brits, who have just finished banning all private ownership of handguns, insist THEY still protect the "rights of law-abiding hunters, target shooters, and collectors," too. If you have an English country estate, you can still own a richly-engraved, $5,000 bird gun. If you like to target shoot, you may fire pellet guns or even .22s at your registered club ... so long as you leave the weapon locked up there when you go home. And "collectors" are still presumably welcome to own as many guns as they want ... from the flintlock era or earlier. Gee, that'll put them in great shape the next time the Germans or French come storming the beaches. Which is precisely why OUR Second Amendment talks exclusively about the needs of "the militia." Meantime, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents holding a panel discussion for an audience of mostly gun store owners at this week's SHOT Outdoor Trades show, here in Las Vegas, declared that the way they interpret the "permanent replacement Brady Bill" due to go into effect in November of 1998 -- the one the NRA favors due to its promised "insta-Check" capability - -- will call for a "Brady check" and permanent record of every LONG GUN purchase, as well. The NRA operates, in effect, as nothing but a public relations outreach arm for the Republican Party, tasked to convince gun rights advocates that the GOP is their only hope. But Newt Gingrich promised us that if only we would elect a GOP majority to Congress there would be "no more gun control passed" on his watch, didn't he? Mind you, that's a pretty modest promise, compared to the Libertarian Party platform plank on guns, which calls for ALL existing gun control laws to be immediately REPEALED. But not only have Mr. Gingrich's Republicans failed to repeal the major federal gun control acts of 1933 and 1968, not only have they failed to repeal the Brady Bill and the Feinstein-Schumer "assault weapons ban" (as they promised), but they actually ENACTED the so-called Anti-Terrorism Bill with the Lautenberg Amendment, which retroactively strips police and many other citizens of their gun rights based on any prior domestic misdemeanor convictions (shouting at your kids). And then, not satisfied, they went on to pass the "Gun Free School Zone Act" ... TWICE! Putting him to the test of fire, I asked Larry Pratt of GOA last week whether he would favor allowing a 17-year-old girl to walk into a hardware store, buy and take home a belt-fed .30-caliber machine gun, without signing her name, showing any ID, or applying for any kind of government "permit." "Well, that's the way it would have been in 1933, before the National Firearms Act, wouldn't it?" he asked. "Is that a yes?" I asked back. Mr. Pratt, in front of a sizeable public gathering at the San Remo Hotel and Casino, said "Yes." And that's why I think we're about to see a changing of the guard when it comes to gun-rights lobbying, from the arthritic and the defeated, to the aggressive, the fearless, and the principled. Congressman Ron Paul, R-Tex., has called Gun Owners of America "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." With a fraction of the NRA's manpower, membership or budget, GOA has defeated powerful state legislative committee chairmen (in Ohio) who were foolish enough to support more gun control, and has helped elect congressmen like Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, currently sponsor of HR27, the Citizens Self-Defense Act, which would "protect the right to obtain ... and to use firearms in defense of self, family or home." Unless they change their stripes with fearsome speed, I fear the NRA and their hog-trough affiliate, the Republican Party as we've known it, are headed for the elephant's graveyard, and soon. On the other hand, if Gun Owners of America sold stock, I'd be buying. 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. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams - --- end forwarded text - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 02:12:34 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: more nice ranting - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 6, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Getting started S.J. writes from Johns Hopkins: "Vin -- I have found and enjoyed your web page (http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/). I am also recently reading David Boaz's book "Libertarianism: A Primer." I have been accused by professors of being a Libertarian. I really was not sure what one was. Thus my recent readings. I have many questions and no one to dialogue with. If you have time, could you tell me places I may check here in Washington D.C. ..." Egon, whose locale I don't know, similarly inquires: "... Incidently, I both enjoy and dread (reading your columns.) So few people realize how this country was intended. There is no other country in which the citizens are "sovereign," with all the rights of a king reserved to the people. But at the same time, the government has craftily changed things around. And so, the real question: Can you point me in a direction to information about how to help address these issues, or people to talk to about them?" # # # Since informing others must always start with informing ourselves, I suggested that both fellows they lay hands on a couple of recent catalogs from Laissez Faire Books, 938 Howard St., Suite 202, San Francisco 94103; tel. 415-541-9780; e-mail orders to orders@laissezfaire.org. Beginners may want to look for Thomas Szasz, Burton Folsom, Albert J. Nock, John Taylor Gatto, and Ayn Rand. Laissez Faire now lists L. Neil Smith's "Bretta Martin," which is good, but not "Pallas," which would be better. Also missing are John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" (Accuracy Press) and Claire Wolfe's "101 Things to Do Till the Revolution" (Loompanics.) It's also worth getting on the mailing list of the Cato Institute, at 100 Mass. Ave. NW, in Washington D.C., 20001 (tel. 202-842-0200), and of Bumper Hornberger's Future of Freedom Foundation (e-mail FFFVA@compuserve.com), in Northern Virginia. The Ludwig von mises Institute (owner-misesmail@colossus.net), tel. 334-844-2500 puts out some nifty economic publications, and for e-mail on jury rights issues you can't beat the Jury Rights Project, e-mail jrights@levellers.org; web page www.lrt.org/jrp.homepage.htm. Leading the new battle against the national ID card is the Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprints Law, Suite 133, 5446 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Atlanta 30341; voice mail 404-250-8105; web site www.atlantainfoguide.com/repeal/. I seem to have fallen out of touch with the Separation of School and State Alliance, based in California; maybe they'll send me some up-to-date contact information. President Brenda Grantland tells me the group Forfeiture Endangers American Rights has recently opened an office in D.C., and may be in a position to welcome volunteer help as well as contributions. Contact Interim Director Tom Gordon at the F.E.A.R. Foundation, P.O. Box 15421 Washington, D.C. 20003; tel. 202-546-4381, or toll free at 1-888-FEAR-001; e-mail TomGordon@fear.org; web site http://www.fear.org. Other groups worth contacting for information -- and supporting with donations or volunteer help -- include the Fully-Informed Jury Association at Box 59, Helmville, Montana 59843, tel. 406-793-5550, and Aaron Zelman's Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 2874 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, Wisc. 53207, tel. 414-769-0760 (web site http://www.JPFO.org; e-mail Against-Genocide@JPFO.org.) JPFO welcomes "righteous goyim," or non-Jews, and in fact never even asks prospective members their religion. I used to think JPFO was the only truly principled gun-rights organization in the nation, holding that ANY "gun control" is an inevitable precursor to new genocides. I am now, finally, ready to submit that there are two. I have been watching for some years the development of Larry Pratt's Gun Owners of America, based at 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, Va. 22151; tel. 703-321-8585; web site http://www.gunowners.org; e-mail goaslad@aol.com. Folks have always called GOA "the other gun group," in deference to the massive and cholesterol-clogged National Rifle Association. Enemies of freedom always enjoy caricaturing ther NRA as a bunch of buck-toothed hunters in plaid shirts, blasting away at Bambi with a bazooka. But let me make a fearless prediction right here: as the lean little GOA strides onto their battlefield like an adolescent saber-tooth, the forces of victim disarmament are going to start waxing reminiscent about the warm, happy days when their only "opposition" was that walnut-brained brontosaurus, the NRA. The NRA's lobbying philosophy has long been to ridicule Libertarians or Independents who may be TRUE devotees of our Second Amendment rights, instead cynically endorsing and even funding the "lesser of two evils" among the two candidates representing the Republicrat and Demopublican branches of the Big Government Party. This NRA spending and lobbying philosophy is all about "buying access," but as Mr. Pratt of GOA says, "It's all based on a defeatist attitude. They think we've lost, that we have a bad bargaining position, so all we can do is make the best deal we can with this tyrant." Recently, NRA lobbyists have even twisted arms in state legislatures around the nation to INCREASE the cost and "training" rigmarole required to lay hands of a state "concealed carry permit" ... the better to insure the standards are the same nationwide. GOA thinks permit requirements should be identical in every state, too ... identical to the current law in Vermont, which requires no permit for concealed carry, at all, and which has "the lowest murder rate in the country," smiles Mr. Pratt. "But the 'access' lobbyists, if their approach was right, why do we keep losing ground?" Pratt asked his enthusiastic Las Vegas crowd. Next time: The GOA plays hardball. 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 "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams - --- end forwarded text - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:03:19 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: citizenship training - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Police apologize for strip-searching schoolgirls McMINNVILLE, Ore. (AP) - Two women police officers searching for stolen makeup, jewelry and cash at a middle school strip-searched about 25 girls, some of whom say they were asked to lift their shirts, shake their bras and drop their panties. Thursday's search turned up nothing, and police in McMinnville, a city of 20,000 about 30 miles southwest of Portland, later hand-delivered apologies to the parents of the 12- and 13-year-old girls. Police Chief Rod Brown wrote that the conduct of the two officers ``exceeded the scope of what was necessary.'' ``We believe the manner in which the search was conducted may have been inappropriate,'' Brown wrote. ``Officials taking the action were acting in best interest of kids involved as well as school as a whole, but their judgment may have been rash.'' That wasn't good enough for Barbara Paulson, who kept her 12-year-old daughter Amanda home from Duniway Middle School on Friday and plans to file complaints against police, the school, the gym teacher and the principal. ``This is not going to stop here,'' said Mrs. Paulson, who refused to allow her daughter to be interviewed. ``My daughter was asked to lower her pants to below her knees and she was asked to lower her panties to her knees. She is embarrassed and hurt. Her rights were completely violated.'' Mrs. Paulson gave this account: The search took place during gym class after several students in the locker room complained that jewelry, makeup, CDs and about $30 had been stolen. The gym teacher asked the guilty party to come forward. No one spoke up. That's when the school called in two police officers. The girls were called into the locker room two by two for the search. Some girls were asked to lift their shirts. Some had to shake their bras, and Mrs. Paulson's daughter was asked to lower her pants and panties to her knees. Several girls who were menstruating refused to drop their panties. ``One of them refused and was told if she refused again, they would do a cavity search,'' Mrs. Paulson said. Officers found nothing. Mrs. Paulson said her daughter was in tears at the end of the two-hour process. Principal Mickey Toft referred all calls to district Superintendent Elaine Taylor, who did not return a call Friday. The police chief also did not return calls Friday. But his spokesman said he did not consider what happened a strip search. ``They were asked to loosen clothing to check for contraband,'' said Sgt. Dan Brown. ``One of the places was the waistband of their panties.'' Parents contend anyone in the school had access to the lockers. But the spokesman said it was reasonable to assume that the thief was among the students in the gym class. ``Most (parents) as a whole understand that there has been a problem with thefts, and they appreciate that we are trying to solve it,'' Dan Brown said. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 98 11:40:14 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ 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 - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:06:24 -0600 (CST) From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: God be with you my friend, Lobo, Jim Bohan I can't stop crying, I have lost one of my best friends. Jim Bohan was one of the first people I met both on Internet and later in person in 1993. He helped organize the DF8 internet list to get rid of Tom Foley. He helped Dr. Fran Haga get information for the House investigation into the Branch Davidians. He helped form a list NOBAN to repeal the gun ban law and we did get a house vote. He helped try and buy the Rules of Engagement Movie with a group of investors and Mike McNulty. He helped Suzanna Hupp get elected to office. He was an actor, producer, writer, and a Texan above all in the spirit of the men who died in the Alamo. He went around the country in his old beat up pickup truck supporting gun rights all over America. I had countless e-mails and phone conversations with Lobo. He grew up sneaking into black jazz bars listing to the early blues and was the only white kid in the whole area. He was a true character in the spirit of John Wayne and helped anyone who asked. His humor, wit, wisdom and friendship will be always treasured. People like Jim were one in a million. He was a true American patriot a man who loved America and everything we are about. He believed in freedom and liberty. And now he has gone and died. Truly amazing that he died at his Internet keyboard of a massive heart attack. He went out just like the way he lived. Jim always seemed to have the last word. Jim, I know you will help us and guide us on our journey back to freedoms road. I am glad I had the pleasure of knowing you, I miss you old friend. Regards, Paul Watson Dallas, Texas - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 01:00:43 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: NY Post: Cllintons Homophobes (fwd) Looks like the Clintons just came down with _another_ case of, "foot 'n mouth", disease, but then what else could one possibly expect to catch from a toe-sucker.....:-) If this keeps up, they won't make it to a tree, they'll just hang 'em from a stair rail. On Feb 01, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] New York Post COMMENTARY CLINTONS JUST A COUPLE OF CLOSET HOMOPHOBES By RAY KERRISON ---------- THE Clinton co-presidency, even in the best of times, was not much for laughs, but last week, it set off a howler. Bill and Hill exposed themselves as closet homophobes. It all blew into the open when their former dearest friend, Dick Morris, called a Los Angeles radio talk show and offered a decidedly bizarre explanation of why President Clinton might have embarked on an affair with a 21-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky. He read the hypothetical notion that Bill's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, might be a lesbian. Later, he retracted the idea, but the damage had been done. The White House reacted as if Saddam Hussein had lobbed a weapon of mass destruction on the Oval Office. The president was so furious at the public suggestion that Hillary was gay that he vowed never to speak to Morris again. "The president had exactly the reaction that you'd expect," said his press secretary, Mike McCurry. At that, I fell down laughing. If there is one thing the Clinton administration prides itself on is its compassion, understanding and promotion of the homosexual community and its agenda. Clinton's first major thrust in office was to dismantle 200 years of history and open America's military services to gays. He became the first president ever to receive a delegation of homosexuals in the White House. But when it was suggested that someone in his immediate family was gay, Clinton went ballistic, acting as if it were the worst insult ever hurled at him. How can that be? If homosexuality is the moral and social equivalent of heterosexuality, as the president and his administration have insisted, why should anyone be offended at being called gay? Or could it be that in this case, as in so many others, the Clintons refuse to practice what they preach? It's called hypocrisy. If the Clintons were seething that Morris should dare to insinuate that Hillary is gay, it was nothing compared with McCurry's explosive wrath. "I can't believe any responsible news organization would use that," he yelled at reporters. "I think it's disgusting that any journalist could think about reporting it." In other words, the official word out of the White House is that it is "disgusting" even to imply that someone might be gay. Well now, what does Barney Frank, the gay Massachusetts congressman and stout public defender of the embattled Clintons, think about this? Does this mean that the Clintons and McCurry think ol' Barney is disgusting because he is gay? The Clintons can't have it both ways. They can't be up front lecturing Americans on the need for tolerance for gays while privately condemning them. Are we talking homophobia here or not? The swift White House condemnation of suggested gayness for Hillary is a slap in the face to their ever faithful Vice President Al Gore. Back in October, Gore gave the country a lecture on how people should view the homosexual population. In a speech to entertainment executives in Los Angeles, Gore lavished praise on ABC-TV for screening "Ellen," whose star in fiction and fact, Ellen DeGeneres, is a lesbian. "When the character Ellen came out," Gore said, "millions of Americans were forced to look at sexual orientation in a more open light." The display of women kissing women passionately on the TV screen in tens of millions of American living rooms apparently is a desirable advance in Gore's scheme of things. He is, thus, a major sponsor of the gay-rights movement. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot. So where does that leave the Clintons? If they think the worst social crime imaginable is to call someone a lesbian, they clearly fit the bigot category as defined by Gore. And as for Mike, he should be drummed out of office. It gets worse. Clinton right now is attempting to name James C. Hormel, heir to the Hormel (Spam) meat fortune, as American ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel just happens to be one of the highest-profile homosexuals in the country, a flamboyant, militant, radical advocate for the worse gay agenda. Working out of San Francisco, he uses his vast fortune to promote the agenda even in schools. He recently ditched his long attached "companion" to take up with a gay young blade half his 64 years. If the Senate approved his nomination, Hormel would become the first openly gay ambassador in American diplomatic history, complete with his male lover in residence. At first, Clinton wanted to send him to India, only to retreat in haste when someone woke up and realized sodomy is a crime in that country. So now the Clintons want to send him to Luxembourg, which is 95 percent Catholic. Republicans, to date, have held up the nomination. We are only left to wonder why Clinton would smash all diplomatic tradition by appointing a raging gay to a European country while secretly renouncing the notion that one of his own might be gay. It's disgusting, he thinks. Even more disgusting might be the president's hypocrisy, showing a gay face to the world and a homophobic revulsion in private. ---------- MORE COMMENTARY Copyright (c) 1998, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of the New York Post is prohibited. [------------------------- 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: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:46:47 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: cash not allowed - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Suffice it to say that I find nearly all cases where someone is "demanding" >personal information to be cases where the government has required them to, >for various unseemly purposes, or in cases where credit is being arranged. Of late I tried to pay off a rather large American Express bill. Suddenly, AMEX won't take cash in excess of $1,000 in any single billing period (30 days). The large sign on the wall indicated the substance of the new rule (or the old rule newly enforced) and added that customers "may be required to produce two forms of identification including a government issued identification card and a social security number." Here's a situation where the payor is (theoretically) positively identified to the payee (including ssn), where credit has already been established, and where records are certain to exist for all transactions which are being paid for. The AMEX Corporate card was once a wonderful tool to preserve anonymity with. One could issue several cards for a domestic company, 100% owned by an offshore, and settle in cash. Properly done, this was perfectly legal. Well, once upon a time anyhow. I find it extremely alarming that a general transaction like this can be illegal where almost no case can be made for a danger of money laundering or some kind of support of the "underground economy" (except perhaps that I'd have Pablo Escobar pay off my Amex to compensate me for my illegal smuggling flights, but that's a bit thin in my view). Increasingly, I try and find explanations for these kinds of regulations which do not include a paranoid rant about governments making sure they maintain a firm set of records on every citizen for whenever it might be "needed," (or wanted). Increasingly, this becomes a difficult mental task. Increasingly, it is difficult to make cash transactions. In the end that seems to be the point. Make it difficult to pay with cash. Make it suspicious to pay with cash. Make it an attention getter if you pay with cash. Sound paranoid? Try this. I'd like everyone who reads this to try and go 45 days without using plastic or writing a check. Just 45 days. If you don't grow alarmist very quickly (like in the first week) I'd like to hear your experience. If nothing else, try adding up a few months of finance charges, yearly fees on your credit cards, transactions fees, check fees, interest lost on no-interest checking accounts... see what you're paying to keep people from looking at you like a criminal. There's an interesting new awakening in personal finance right now which advises, among other things, "pay in cash, die broke." I'm interested to see how this "pay in cash" advice, which I have followed religiously years before it was put in print, clashes with post-modern financial regulation. I know things have gotten really out of hand because the phrase "No, I'll pay with cash," which I find I have to use more and more often, turns more and more heads and is met more and more often with a cross look from a teller and a finger pointed at a large sign bearing the heading "Restrictions on Cash Transactions." When the question becomes "Which credit card will you be paying with?" and no longer does one hear "How will you be paying for that?" I think people better start thinking about what's happening. (I'm not on cypherpunks anymore, mail me directly). - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:29:08 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: cash not allowed > Increasingly, I try and find explanations for these kinds of regulations >which do not include a paranoid rant about governments making sure they >maintain a firm set of records on every citizen for whenever it might be >"needed," (or wanted). Increasingly, this becomes a difficult mental task. > Read "The Sovereign Individual" by mummblemumble and Rees-Moog. U.S. is struggling to control: encr**tion technology and currency flows. Reason: people wishing to move their investments/income to lower tax jurisdictions. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:37:58 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: [Fwd: DRUDGE-REPORT-BREAK 2/2/98] (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:30:14 -0600 From: Brenda Jinkins To: CAS Subject: CAS: [Fwd: DRUDGE-REPORT-BREAK 2/2/98] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: DRUDGE-REPORT-BREAK 2/2/98 > Date: Mon, 02 Feb 98 00:45:29 EST > From: drudge@drudgereport.com > To: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM > > XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT BREAK XXXXX 07:09 UTC MON FEB 02 1998 XXXXX > > UPDATE: WHITE HOUSE AIDE BLUMENTHAL THREATENS TO DEPOSE RUSSERT FOR LETTING > DRUDGE ON AIR > > White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, senior adviser to President Clinton, has > sent a letter of warning to NBC NEWS Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert and > NBC NEWS President Andy Lack after the appearance of Matt Drudge on the > network's MEET THE PRESS. Drudge appeared on the show on January, 25, 1998 > -- the broadcast pulled in its highest audience rating since 1991. > > ----- > > Mr. Tim Russert NBC NEWS > 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. > Washington, D.C. 20016 > > Re: Blumenthal v. Drudge > Civil Action No 97-1968 > > Dear Mr. Russert: > > This firm represents Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal in > the above-captioned matter. > > This letter concerns the recent appearance of Matt Drudge on your television > show, MEET THE PRESS. You introduced him on MEET THE PRESS, and you then > offered Mr. Drudge to your audience as though you believed him to be a > reputable journalist. > > The Blumenthals are interested in learning whether you intend to testify on > behalf of Mr. Drudge at the upcoming trial of the above-captioned case, to > vouch for his credentials as a journalist. If you do, we wish to take your > deposition. > > Please let us have your response, or that of your attorney, at your earliest > convenience. > > cc: Mr. Andrew Lack, President, NBC NEWS > > ---- > > Russert tells Monday's WASHINGTON POST that he has no plans on testifying in > any court case involving Blumenthal and Drudge. The program's round table, > where Drudge appeared, "is an Op-Ed page," he said. "We've had Christopher > Hitchens, Rush Limbaugh, Mary Matalin and James Carville, and we don't > endorse any opinions. We're here to offer opinions." > > The DRUDGE REPORT Internet website has been visited 4,203,644 times in the > past 31 days. > > Blumenthal's warning to NBC came just days after Drudge was first to reveal > the story that a former White House intern claimed that she had a sexual > relationship with President Clinton and that jobs had been offered to win > her silence -- claims captured on tape. > > Last week's TIME magazine reported that Blumenthal created a "gigantic" > diagram inside of his White House office "outlining with circles and arrows > the byzantine Republican conspiracy surrounding the tapes." > > It is not known at this time if Drudge's name appeared on the diagram. > > White House aide Blumenthal is suing Drudge for $30 million for a story that > appeared in the DRUDGE REPORT last summer, a story that was retracted within > 24 hours. The complaint is 137-pages and names AMERICA ONLINE, which > carries Drudge's column, as co-defendant. > > REUTERS has reported that President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore > "approved" of Blumenthal's decision to file the lawsuit. > > Paragraph #174 of Blumenthal v. Drudge claims: "Defendant AOL knew that, or > acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge was a political > conservative." > > "Matt Drudge keeps claiming that he's being sued by the White House and much > to my dismay, I've got proof that he's right," USC Professor Of Law and > former presidential campaign manager Susan Estrich wrote last December. > > Deputy Press Secretary to the President Joe Lockart called USA TODAY to > criticize an editorial that Estrich wrote in the newspaper that was mildly > supportive of Drudge. > > The Deputy Press Secretary to the President went on to question the > Editorial Page Editor of USA TODAY about Estrich's employment background. > > "If this is a private lawsuit pursued in a private capacity, why is the > White House calling to complain?" Estrich asked. > > ____________________________________________________ > The REPORT is moved when circumstances warrant > http://www.drudgereport.com for breaks > (c)DRUDGE REPORT 1998 > Not for reproduction without permission of the author ========================================================================== 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 - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #59 ************************