From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #62 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, February 4 1998 Volume 02 : Number 062 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 06:50:40 -0800 (PST) From: wbg Subject: Remembering Lobo I've been so stunned out of it over the news I couldn't even think clearly the last few days. Jim was a one-of-a-kind man and will be sorely missed. I will cherish the memory, after corresponding with him on the Net for some time, and proofing his manuscripts by snailmail, of having been privileged to visit him at his ranch a little over a year ago and experience his oversized Texas hospitality. Jim was truly a renaissance man - able to move between the State House and the cookhouse with utter aplomb. During his Hollywood career, principally as a producer, he appeared in a dozen or so movies and many television shows; he was Officer Holstein (who had the ass end ripped out of his squad car) in _American Grafitti_. Jim was a patriot through and through, as many others have pointed out; and his patriotism was much more than just reflex flag-waving; it was that most valuable kind which is informed by a vast and questing intellect, and underpinned by the hard labor of thought and logical analysis. We'll miss you, Jim. Don't anyone ever tell me grown men can't cry! Brewster Gillett -- *********************************************************************** "Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." Tacitus W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:23:11 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: FARAH: Why presidents shouldn't fool around (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:07:54 -0600 From: Bill Nalty To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: CAS: FARAH: Why presidents shouldn't fool around WorldNetDaily Tuesday, February 3, 1998=20 Why presidents shouldn't fool around=20 By Joseph Farah Since the issues of simple morality and decency don't seem to be resonating with the American public with regard to Tailgate and the Monica Lewinsky affair, let's examine some other practical reasons why presidents shouldn't carry on covert sexual dalliances.=20 Recently, the Air Force bounced a female bomber pilot for having an affair with a married man. Why? Several reasons. But one very good one is that the military recognizes that officers who can be called upon to conduct top-secret missions involving national security should not be subject to blackmail. They should not have deep, dark secrets in their life that might make them subject to such pressures. And the military, of course, would like to know who is sharing pillow talk with its key combat personnel.=20 Everyone understands this going in to the job. There are sacrifices you have to make if you want to be trained to be a bomber pilot. You sign an oath. You make a pledge. You give your word. And if you go back on that word, then maybe you can't be trusted in other matters. It's a simple, straightforward policy. Kelly Flynn broke it. And she paid the price.=20 You may disagree with the policy. You may argue that she was treated too harshly. You may believe her case was handled differently than others. But you have to admit there are good reasons for such requirements. It's a matter of discipline, order and, yes, national security.=20 If such policies make sense - any sense - for an Air Force pilot who may never be called upon to fly a mission involving national security, how much more sense do they make for the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the world's only superpower?=20 We have already learned that while President Clinton was accepting sexual favors from Monica Lewinsky in the White House, she was also, at least briefly, carrying on an affair with a married man in Oregon. There is no reason to believe Clinton was aware of this or cared. We don't know if the Secret Service had knowledge of the president's involvement with Lewinsky or her on-going affair with her former teacher.=20 Do you see the problems here? A few years ago, a high British official carried on a torrid affair with a call girl. That in itself was a scandal. But when it was learned that the prostitute was simultaneously seeing a KGB agent, it brought down the government. That's an extreme case, but it happens. It wasn't the first time or the last that spies used women to ply secrets from compromised politicians.=20 Former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, author of "Unlimited Access," tried to persuade the Clinton White House to take security seriously. He was laughed at. He was ignored. From day one, security was a joke in the Clinton White House, Aldrich shows. If nothing else, the Lewinsky affair illustrates this attitude came right from the top.=20 Who knows, for instance, whom else Lewinsky might have been sleeping with? And who knows whom else Bill Clinton is sharing "intimate" moments with? Other women, including at least one other White House volunteer, has testified that the president was on the prowl. There are enough rumors of other trysts to suggest it would be next to impossible to ensure the security of the Oval Office.=20 Remember Dick Morris? Why was he fired as a political consultant to the president? Because he was seeing a call girl and boasting of the secrets to which he was privy. He even let her listen in to phone conversations with the president. If secret adulterous relationships are hazardous to the health of presidential political consultants, why should they not be taken even more seriously when they involve the president himself? It was telling about what little regard Clinton has for security issues when he briefly brought Morris back to help clean up his Lewinsky mess. That move was short-circuited within days when Morris self-destructed again by suggesting on a talk show that Bill Clinton's promiscuity could be a result of Hillary Rodham Clinton's own unusual sexual proclivities.=20 An equally important reason for the president to avoid compromising his office over a sordid sexual affair is because this is the United States of America. The president represents all of us in what is often a hostile world. The United States plays an important role in keeping the peace. What does the world think about the Monica Lewinsky affair?=20 "Bewilderment, scorn, apprehension and contempt were the main reactions overseas to the unfolding sex scandal in Washington, which has dominated newspaper headlines around the world," said a story last week in the prestigious London Times. The mullahs in Iran were laughing at us. Iraq's Saddam Hussein blamed Clinton's "animal instincts" for an imminent attack on his country. In Spain they were wondering if the U.S. might not embark on some kind of military adventurism to enable Clinton to regain control and divert attention from the scandal a la the plot of the current Hollywood film "Wag the Dog." China wondered about Clinton's command of policy if he couldn't control his impulses or his subordinates.=20 The point is, America deserves better than this. As George Will observed, let's forget about punishing Clinton for his abuses and misconduct, let's stop punishing ourselves and our nation with this kind of embarrassment and unnecessary risk.=20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters.=20 =A91998, Western Journalism Center =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:37:22 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: Elizabeth Farah: What kind of president would you be? (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:15:37 -0600 From: Bill Nalty To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: CAS: Elizabeth Farah: What kind of president would you be? WorldNetDaily February 3, 1998 Common Sense Commentary What kind of president would you be?=20 By Elizabeth Farah President Washington understood the monumental responsibility which necessarily accompanied his role as the first man to hold the office of the presidency in the newly formed United States. He knew the actions he took, how he comported himself in office, would define the presidency. There were no customs, no precedents. The Constitution which directed the three branches of our national government was a unique document, untested. President Washington and the other founders had pledged "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Because of this Washington took his responsibility seriously. Washington was in his own time hailed as a man of genuine steadfast character, honest, courageous, principled. Today his legacy is untarnished. Washington retired to private life deserving the label he earned =96 "father of our country." His Farewell Address was once studied by every school child in America. If you=92d like to read the speech of a man who walked his talk =96 read this.=20 Since Washington, 41 presidents have stepped into his former position. Each president has been honored by the American people with the opportunity to serve their country. Some presidents have left the office with the honor of the position still intact, their place in history assured. Others have used their position for corrupt practices: subverting their constitutional authority, abuse of power, personal enrichment. It has been widely noted that President Clinton is obsessively concerned with his legacy, he is searching for some "New Deal" with which his name will be linked for posterity. He is unaware of the natural influence our personality, character and ideals have over the institutions in which we place ourselves. No institution, be it familial or work-related, will escape conforming to its most powerful member(s). President Clinton has created a legacy, but is it the one he sought? Let=92s see if you can step into his shoes: Take the Presidential Suitability Test.=20 Your childhood friend and deputy White House counsel is found dead in a park. You ...=20 a.) order a thorough, aggressive investigation by the FBI. Because you fired the director of the FBI the day before, you immediately appoint a career professional to the post -- you do not want the investigation compromised.=20 b.) you allow the Park Police to take care of the matter -- after all they are police, aren=92t they? You send your buddy in to oversee the FBI until you have time to appoint a new director.=20 Moments after the discovery of your friend's death, his office is cordoned off by the park police. You ...=20 a.) contact your staff and tell them to cooperate fully with the investigators and to stay out of the office. You will not countenance an appearance of obstruction of justice.=20 b.) have your staff enter the office against the protestations of police, instruct them to ransack all files and have the hard disk of his computer wiped clean of all data.=20 A reporter, after an in-depth investigation, finds serious irregularities with the investigation. He has documented evidence. You =85= =20 a.) are shocked! Has some heinous crime been committed and left unpunished? This was a senior White House official and a close friend! You have your staff contact the reporter =96 you wish to judge his evidence yourself. You then call the widow personally to console her, promise to get to the bottom of this, order the body exhumed and an investigation into the investigation.=20 b.) do nothing, wouldn=92t it be great if this landed in the black hole of an independent counsel?=20 Executives with your party propose a background report on some of your most vocal critics. They want the White House to cooperate in gathering information on private citizens. After completion, the White House will distribute the report to friendly journalists in order to smear and intimidate detractors. You=85=20 a.) are appalled! Use taxpayer funds for political purposes? Violate the First Amendment rights of targeted Americans? You throw the bums out of the Oval Office and call party offices to demand his resignation!=20 b.) ask how long the report will take to produce.=20 The chief of White House security, an ex-bar bouncer has what he considers a great idea. Obtain confidential FBI security files on members of the opposing party. These files contain the results of investigations conducted into the subject=92s private lives =96 really juic= y stuff! You never know when this might come in handy! You =85=20 a.) are scandalized! This proposal would violate the Constitution and the trust of the American people. If you did this, the Congress would immediately issue an inquiry into impeachment. You have this man fired and demand to know who hired him in the first place.=20 b.) make a priority list on whose files you want most.=20 Your wife comes to you with what she considers to be a swell idea. Fire the staff of the Travel Office so she can get some of your friends into the lucrative business of coordinating travel for national government officials. You =85=20 a.) love your wife but are ashamed by her proposal. You remind her: you were elected president, not she. You also remind her that you would never compromise your ethics for personal gain and influence. Besides, this would surely get out -- it is an impeachable offense. The Congress would never abrogate responsibility to impeach for corruption.=20 b.) You kiss her cheek. Isn't she darling? Put her on the project. Remind her to bring in the FBI and the IRS if needed.=20 Members of your staff want to run another idea past you. Money is tight, your next campaign will be expensive. They put forth their plan: Take the White House visitor database and merge it with your party's. Coordinate efforts to use the White House as a fundraising machine. Sell access to the Lincoln bedroom, coffees, Air Force One, radio addresses etc. You =85=20 a.) are beside yourself with rage! "Insanity!" you cry. Everything they have proposed is unconstitutional and unethical! Do your own people want you impeached? Congress would never let this go by. You fire all staffers involved.=20 b.) laugh, Why didn=92t you guys think of this before?=20 You and your wife are giving a dinner party. You ask your security staff to identify the strangers present. They assure you they have invited all the "right" people: South American drug runners, international arms dealers, foreign representatives, a few members of a religious order =96 are those Buddhist nuns? You =85=20 a.) politely excuse yourself. Call an emergency staff meeting and question the security standards of the responsible parties. This is the White House for heaven=92s sake, not a bordello! Later you call Gary Alldrich and apologize.=20 b.) say, "Great! This is a fundraiser isn=92t it? Who=92s that cute chick over there?=20 You have been informed that that the Communist Chinese have spent millions of dollars in an attempt to manipulate America=92s elections and foreign policy. You =85=20 a.) go on national television to inform the public of your concerns. You demand a thorough investigation saying, "Let the chips fall where they may. The security and sovereignty of the United States will never be compromised!"=20 b.) sell super computers to the Chinese.=20 c.) allow defense contractors to sell high-tech weaponry (unavailable to some of our allies) to the Chinese without clearing transactions with the appropriate federal agencies=20 d.) see if you can get some of the money.=20 e.) propose to the Chinese, their purchase of a naval base in California next to top-secret defense installations. This will complement their new leases at both ends of the Panama Canal. They will be able to ship cargo in and out of the U.S. without going through Customs. You want to be a good neighbor.=20 A White House cabinet official, under the cloud of investigation, dies in a plane crash. A year later it comes to light that pathologists present at the examination urged the examiner to perform an autopsy because a perfectly cylindrical hole the size and shape of a bullet wound is found in the cabinet official=92s head. You=85=20 a.) are shocked! Has some heinous crime been committed and left unpunished? This was a senior White House official! Anyone with common sense would have autopsied. This is about national security! You call the widow personally to console her, promise to get to the bottom of this, order the body exhumed (this will prove or disprove the charges and the confidence of the American people will be restored) and order an investigation into the conduct of the examiner who refused to autopsy.=20 b.) chuckle.=20 You are confronted by the charge that you had a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old intern. This is categorically untrue so you =85=20 a.) are outraged! You immediately go on national television to deny all charges. You answer all questions fully because your marriage, the dignity of the presidency and the trust of the American people are at stake. You don=92t need lawyers, advisers and spin doctors =96 you have don= e no wrong! No one will believe that you would risk your presidency, the integrity and honor of our nation, not to mention jeopardize national security for cheap thrills. Besides, Congress would never contenence behavior like this =96 these are impeachable offenses!=20 b.) avoid most questions and obfuscate the answers you do address. You ask your wife to think of a diversion - hey, what about a right-wing conspiracy, or is that getting old? You call Dick Morris =96 he=92ll know o= f a way to divert attention. What=92s next? War? I=92ll save that as a last resort.=20 Scoring your suitablity test:=20 For all (a) answers, give yourself 0 points. For all other answers give yourself 50 points each.=20 Analysis: 0 points: you are old-fashioned and out-of-touch. You may join a George Washington fan club but you are unfit for the presidency of the 1990s.=20 50 to 600: You obviously lack the character of consistency and strength of purpose. Re-examine your test and evaluate your error(s)=20 650 point: Congratulations! You are perfectly suited for the office of the presidency in the 21st century. Contact your party=92s headquarters for their support.=20 =A91998, Western Journalism Center =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 14:42:34 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [FFNET V2N9] Response to Denny's Firearm Ban (fwd) On Feb 03, Donald L. Cline wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ============================================================================= Volume 2 FREEDOM FIGHTER NET No. 9 ============================================================================= This is a manual list. If you want off, just e-mail me. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 3, 1998 Y2k: 1 year, 10 months, 3 weeks, and counting (to fiscal year 2000) [And about a year less than that before the sewage hits the ventilation] ================The following letter is mailed this date================ February 3, 1998 Advantica Restaurant Group, Inc. 203 E. Main St. Spartanburg, SC 29319 ATTN: CEO: James B. Adamson CFO: C. Robert Campbell HR: Stephen W. Wood Board of Directors Re: Firearm Prohibition Policy @ Denny's Restaurants (and possibly other restaurants in your group). Gentlemen: This is my notice to you of _my_ policy: 1. Government has no authority whatsoever to infringe in any way upon my inherited and unalienable right and duty to keep and bear arms in lawful self defense and defense of others. Further, government has no authority whatsoever to infringe upon my right to privacy in the absence of probable cause and due process of law. 2. As an incorporated business, Denny's Restaurants are a "creature of government" which has no "natural rights". It has only powers delegated to it by government. 3. If government has no authority to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms or my right to privacy, then Denny's Restaurants has no authority to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms, nor my right to privacy. 4. So long as Denny's is open to the public and I am a member of the public I will exercise my right to keep and bear arms for lawful purpose while patronizing Denny's as I alone see fit, and I will exercise my right to privacy as as I alone see fit. 5. As a private individual I will not delegate my responsibility for self defense, defense of my family, and defense of my community to government or any creature of government. 6. Any attempt by Advantica Restaurant Group, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or officers or agents or personnel to deprive me of my inherited and unalienable rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States will result in legal redress. The inherited and unalienable rights of individuals are priceless, but I will start the bidding at about 25 million dollars. 7. It never ceases to amaze me that fools will leave themselves open to charges of criminal negligence and civil liability by creating an environment attractive to criminals who see a room full of unarmed and defenseless victims. 8. You are herewith placed on notice as above. Regards, [signed] Donald L. Cline ======================End of encapsulated letter====================== - -- Donald L. Cline Freedom Fighter Net "Do you have the right to free speech?" "Yes." "Do you own a gun?" "No." "Shut up." [------------------------- 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: Tue, 3 Feb 98 14:42:34 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [FFNET V2N9] Response to Denny's Firearm Ban (fwd) On Feb 03, Donald L. Cline wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ============================================================================= Volume 2 FREEDOM FIGHTER NET No. 9 ============================================================================= This is a manual list. If you want off, just e-mail me. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 3, 1998 Y2k: 1 year, 10 months, 3 weeks, and counting (to fiscal year 2000) [And about a year less than that before the sewage hits the ventilation] ================The following letter is mailed this date================ February 3, 1998 Advantica Restaurant Group, Inc. 203 E. Main St. Spartanburg, SC 29319 ATTN: CEO: James B. Adamson CFO: C. Robert Campbell HR: Stephen W. Wood Board of Directors Re: Firearm Prohibition Policy @ Denny's Restaurants (and possibly other restaurants in your group). Gentlemen: This is my notice to you of _my_ policy: 1. Government has no authority whatsoever to infringe in any way upon my inherited and unalienable right and duty to keep and bear arms in lawful self defense and defense of others. Further, government has no authority whatsoever to infringe upon my right to privacy in the absence of probable cause and due process of law. 2. As an incorporated business, Denny's Restaurants are a "creature of government" which has no "natural rights". It has only powers delegated to it by government. 3. If government has no authority to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms or my right to privacy, then Denny's Restaurants has no authority to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms, nor my right to privacy. 4. So long as Denny's is open to the public and I am a member of the public I will exercise my right to keep and bear arms for lawful purpose while patronizing Denny's as I alone see fit, and I will exercise my right to privacy as as I alone see fit. 5. As a private individual I will not delegate my responsibility for self defense, defense of my family, and defense of my community to government or any creature of government. 6. Any attempt by Advantica Restaurant Group, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or officers or agents or personnel to deprive me of my inherited and unalienable rights secured to me by the Constitution of the United States will result in legal redress. The inherited and unalienable rights of individuals are priceless, but I will start the bidding at about 25 million dollars. 7. It never ceases to amaze me that fools will leave themselves open to charges of criminal negligence and civil liability by creating an environment attractive to criminals who see a room full of unarmed and defenseless victims. 8. You are herewith placed on notice as above. Regards, [signed] Donald L. Cline ======================End of encapsulated letter====================== - -- Donald L. Cline Freedom Fighter Net "Do you have the right to free speech?" "Yes." "Do you own a gun?" "No." "Shut up." [------------------------- 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: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 20:22:18 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: ALERT: AL - Why You Should Support HB 32 (fwd) So an "instant check" will be required to buy even a long gun? Somehow I missed that when Brady passed. I thought the purpose of the "instant check" was to replace the current *handgun* checking system. Anybody else suffer from confusion about this? Give me a "complex patchwork" any day over a uniform, fascist standard. bd - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:47:52 -0500 (EST) From: NRA Alerts To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: ALERT: AL - Why You Should Support HB 32 February 2, 1998 ALABAMA WHY SHOULD YOU SUPPORT HB 32? There are a lot of misconceptions being spread about Alabama House Bill 32. The National Rifle Association supports HB 32 because it's good for gun owners. Here's the truth about HB 32: * HB 32 will abolish ALL waiting periods on the purchase of firearms, allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights without delay. * HB 32 will extend Alabama's preemption statute to ALL firearms. Currently, only handguns are protected. The State Legislature should have authority over all of Alabama's gun laws, not just those governing handguns. However, localities are currently free to pass their own laws on long guns. Where there are no uniform state laws, the result is a complex patchwork of gun laws that change from one jurisdiction to the next. * HB 32 will keep the Federal Government out of gun sales in Alabama. Under the Brady Act, the Federal Government will establish a national instant check system for ALL firearms purchases by November 1998. Any state which does not have its own background check system must participate in the Federal Government's. Instant Check is coming to Alabama -- it's just a matter of who will be operating the system. And who do you trust to implement a better, more efficient system? Washington bureaucrats? Or Alabama's own law enforcement officials? * HB 32 will cap the fee charged for performing background checks on prospective gun buyers, the Brady Act allows the Federal Government to set the price. Under Brady, the FBI is given authority to decide how much it will charge firearms dealers to perform background checks. Unless the legislature intervenes, who knows what fees Alabama's gun owners will face in November, when the Federal system goes on-line. HB 32 insures that your rights are protected, and that YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, not civil servants in Washington, have authority over YOUR system. HB 32 is good for Alabama's gun owners! =+=+=+=+ This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 98 19:53:33 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Fratrum: Denny's Bans Guns (fwd) On Feb 3, E.J. Totty wrote: > Bill, > > [...] > You can call Denny's customer relations >department to voice your opinion. The toll free >number is; 1-800-733-6697. I just love toll free >phone numbers. > Hee hee! Ain't technology wonderfull? :-) > > I called, and a nice young lady named Nicole >answered. She, as it happens, is the one to complain to. > She was considerate, and so was I. We talked >a bit, and she indicated that she's had more than a few >calls on the issue. > She took my name and phone number. > Yeah, I know, it could be another way to advertise >daily specials, but hey, if they call back and I'm there to >fill their ears with pro Second Amendment issues, what >better way to do it - on their dime? > And besides, Nicole sounded a bit pro, if you ask >me. > >ET Well and good, but bear in mind that a lot of those folks are hired because they're real agreeable. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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, 04 Feb 1998 07:11:13 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Letter to President Clinton Protesting Army Urban Combat Exercises in Charlotte >Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 20:55:42 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Letter to President Clinton Protesting Army Urban Combat Exercises in Charlotte > >http://site034145.primehost.com/articles/0597/mccrory.htm > > Mayor McCrory's Letter to President Clinton Protesting Army > Urban Combat Exercises in Charlotte > > Document Image Files: > Page 1 | Page 2 > > The Honorable Bill Clinton > President, United States of America > The White House > Washington, D.C. 20500 > > Dear President Clinton: > > I am deeply concerned over the United States Department of > Defense's recent handling of a military training exercise > in Charlotte, North Carolina. The exercise, conducted on > the evening of March 4, 1997, was misrepresented to all > parties involved. It caused fear and anger among our > citizens, who were particularly upset over the lack of > communication and what they perceived to be a lack of > concern on the part of local government officials. > > When Department of Defense personnel first began planning > the operation, they contacted me with little more than a > courtesy briefing on what was represented as a routine > training exercise like many we have done before. DOD staff > also contacted a member of the City Manager's staff, an > employee from the City Real Estate Division and a police > officer who became their liaison with the Police > Department. > > The proposed exercise was presented to myself and City > staff as a low-key, in-and-out operation involving possibly > one helicopter and minimal noise and disruption. We were > told that no one would know they were here. Each person, > including myself, signed and honored confidentiality > agreements because of our desire to cooperate with the > federal government and the belief this was to be a very > small and routine training exercise. > > Based upon the misrepresentation of the proposed training > exercise, the City's Real Estate Division representative > recommended a City-owned facility located in an uptown area > of the city. In addition, a privately owned site in uptown > was also selected. No advance notice was given to the > citizens living near these areas because those individuals > who had knowledge were misled as to the scope of the > operation. > > On the night of March 4, residents of the uptown > neighborhoods were stunned by the sudden appearance of 12 > low-flying helicopters without lights, in possible > violation of FAA regulations. There were snipers on > rooftops shooting live ammunition at fake targets. > Explosive devices were set off, creating a tremendous > amount of noise. Given those conditions and the large > number of military personnel in the area, neighborhood > residents were in fear. Many of them called 911 to get what > scant information was available, and many of them called me > at home. I could hardly hear some of them because of the > noise. > > The next day, many citizens, outraged at the lack of > advance notice and nature of the exercise, called to > express their dismay at the way they perceived the City > handled the incident. It is also clear that had anything > gone wrong, our citizens could have indeed been in danger, > a fact that was never mentioned in the few brief and > incomplete planning discussions for the exercise. > > I am deeply disappointed in the way the Department of > Defense handled this exercise. We insisted the DOD cancel > the exercise scheduled for later that week and it is > unlikely we would be willing to host any future activities > of this type. It is crucial for the safety of our citizens > that the DOD be open about the extent of the exercise and > the level of disruption it will create. Had we known the > scope of the operation, we would have never allowed it to > take place. > > Since the operation took place, I have not even been sent a > letter of explanation or apology from our military. I > understand the exact same dynamics occurred in Pittsburgh > during exercises last year. This is inexcusable and causes > unneeded mistrust of our military. > > The City of Charlotte has always taken pride in its strong > working partnership with the Federal Government. In this > instance, however, we were not dealt with in good faith. I > can only hope the Department of Defense learned from this > experience and that they will not subject other cities to > the fear and confusion they created in Charlotte. Rest > assured, we learned a valuable lesson and will be on our > guard should we receive any other requests to stage > training exercises in this city. > > I look forward to your response. > > cc: Honorable Jesse Helms > Honorable Lauch Faircloth > Honorable Sue Myrick > Honorable Mel Watt > City Councilmembers > Mr. Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff > > Sincerely, > > [signature] > > Patrick McCrory > Mayor of Charlotte > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:17:34 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: CAS: WT: Joint Chiefs riled over Iraq "show" (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 01:46:10 -0800 From: Ken Chafin To: cas@majordomo.pobox.com Subject: CAS: WT: Joint Chiefs riled over Iraq "show" Joint Chiefs riled over Iraq 'show' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are angry with a White House-designed bombing campaign against Iraq because it does not target Saddam Hussein's security forces or his top aides, The Washington Times has learned. Instead, cruise missiles and bombs will be primarily targeted at military facilities and sites known or suspected of holding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons components, during a three-day campaign, according to senior military officials. "The White House is only interested in putting on a show," said a disgruntled military source. The pending attack has European and Arab allies uneasy, and administration officials fear that a high Iraqi death toll could subject the United States to even more international criticism. "This is turning into a political, not a military, option," said one of several senior military officials who spoke to The Times. "This is not a political and military effort that has a strategy. All it is is a list of targets trying to be forced into something they claim is a strategy." Senior military officials, including Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of Operation Desert Storm, were critical of President Bush's decision not to continue the 1991 Gulf war until Saddam was captured. Saddam has remained a thorn in America's side ever since. This is the second high-level inside criticism of White House policy toward Iraq to be made public in recent weeks. A secret CIA report obtained last month by The Times concluded that weak U.S. responses to Saddam's "flouting" of United Nations weapons resolutions had actually strengthened the Iraqi dictator's regime. Senior military officers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Joint Chiefs have argued in recent weeks for concentrated attacks on the barracks of the Republican Guard, Iraq's elite forces, and facilities in Baghdad housing his large security detail. The chiefs also want the pending bombing campaign to target members of Saddam's inner circle, even in their homes if necessary, the sources said. In this way, military officials said, the attack of about three days will be in sharp contrast to previous "pinpricks" -- quick bombing runs or cruise missile launches that have failed to force Baghdad to reveal and destroy its biological and chemical weapons components. Proponents also argue that killing those closest to Saddam would bring the attack to his doorstep, and, perhaps, trigger another internal attempt to oust the dictator. But the White House national security staff, which is dominating the discussion of which targets to hit, is nixing suggestions that American planes and missiles be sent against Iraqi troops and decision-makers. Instead, the White House plan is to target known and suspected weapons facilities, air defenses, command bunkers, and Saddam's presidential "palaces" suspected of concealing weapons material. The target list also contains some Republican Guard assets, such as tanks and armored vehicles, but not attacks on their barracks, according to military officials familiar with the plans. Clinton administration officials are feverishly attempting to round up international support for air strikes to punish Iraq. The officials have indicated the attack may begin in two weeks, with the aim of forcing Saddam to allow United Nations inspectors to visit suspected weapons sites. Iraq agreed to relinquish all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons after its defeat in the 1991 Gulf war. Officers said the attack plan on the first night calls for heavy use of ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, B-52-launched cruise missiles and F-117 stealth fighters now poised on runways in Kuwait. With air defenses damaged, Navy attack jets off three carriers in the Persian Gulf will begin flying directly over targets the second day. The mix of weapons also has military officers grumbling. Some Air Force officers believe no Navy planes should fly over targets and risk having fliers captured. Instead, they believe the Air Force should commit the B-2 stealth bomber to its first military action. But as of yesterday, they said, the plan did not include the bomber, whose radar-evading surface has encountered problems when exposed to harsh weather. Some top Air Force generals fear it may get shot down. Military officers also complain that Tomahawks fired from destroyers and cruisers in the Gulf are targeted at "hardened" facilities that their warheads cannot penetrate and destroy. The F-117 fighters led the way as the Gulf war erupted in January 1991. The bat-shaped plane hit vital telecommunications buildings in downtown Baghdad as waves of allied jets and missiles pounded Iraqi targets for weeks before ground troops drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Military sources said the stealth jet will again be sent inside city limits, if Mr. Clinton approves a strike. The sources said the president is expected to sign off on a bombing plan this week. ========================================================================== 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 #62 ************************