From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #82 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, March 4 1998 Volume 02 : Number 082 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:18:35 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Obscenity Hearings At 17:27 -0500 2/24/1998, mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu wrote: >Forwarding along... >> >> Attached is an article from yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette >>regarding a House hearing on proposed changes in PA's obscenity laws. As you >>will see, three changes are proposed, all of which appear to have religious >>right fingerprints on them, and all with far-reaching implications: -snip- It never ceases to amaze me how many ways the dolts in both elected and appointed office can figure out how to violate the prime directive, "Congress shall make no law . . ." and say that their 'new law' is consistant with that prime directive. In the way of policticans, you get what you pay for, and in the way of bureaucrats, you pay for what you get. ET Once again: In the land of the free, and the home of the brave, there are more laws _against_ freedom, than those which support it. I seriously think most American's don't want freedom. What they _do_ want is to be told - no informed - that they are free, while being indoctrinated on just how they will exercise what freedom remains. Will the last sane person leaving Washington, D.C., please hit that reset button? - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Mar 98 00:58:38 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 Mar 98 15:55:41 -0700 From: jaspar Subject: Incident at CRPA Banquet On Sunday, March 1st, I received some highly disturbing information from a reliable source. At the California Rifle & Pistol Association's Annual Members' Banquet, on Feb. 28, Mr. Wayne LaPierre apparently requested that a copy of a press release be passed out to the 750 or so people attending the dinner. I did not personally attend the dinner, but my source says that the release was about the firearms confiscation program that is now occurring in California thanks to Attorney General Dan Lungren's change of attitude regarding so-called "assault weapons." It seems that the CRPA "refused" to allow the press release to be handed out to those in attendance, but plenty of candidate "campaign literature" was allowed to be freely distributed. WHY would the CRPA allow distribution of candidate campaign materials, but apparently prohibit distribution of a press release that explains that thousands of Californians are either going to jail or going to have their firearms confiscated? Assuming this piece of information is correct, one would have to wonder about the priorities of the leadership of the CRPA. I hope we can get an explanation for this worrisome incident. [end.] - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:31:59 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Fwd: piml] "GUN CONTROL" = GUN PROHIBITION Greg, [...] TO UNDERSTAND THE GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT REQUIRES RECOGNIZING THAT AT ITS CORE LIES THE BELIEF THAT IT IS BARBARIC FOR AN INDIVIDUAL EVEN TO HAVE--MUCH LESS USE--ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE. [...] Corollary: If the original thought - upon which a subsequent statement is made - is found to be faulty in logic and reason, then it reasonably follows that all statements made consonant to the original thought are equally faulty and lacking in true reason. One cannot derive truth from a falsehood, unless looking for opposites. If, in looking for opposites, one does discover the truth - in relation to the current and obverse thinking, then all previous suppositions must be held suspect, eepecially if there is connectedness in those suppositions. What I mean to say here is that if one holds a certain belief to be true, and bases all subsequent activity upon that belief, then if the belief is found to be false, then all connected activity is false - consonant with that belief. Thus, in all of the statements made in that article you sent, and to which I reply, if you apply the above to each of the antis arguments, you will arrive at their non-truth. To presume as they do, that self-defense is not a Right, then preservation of life, or self-preservation is also a non-truth. For that to be true, then all organisms on the face of the earth would have to exhibit that precarious fact of life. Since that is not the case, and since people are an extension of all other life, then it follows that self-preservation, and self-defense by that definition is the truth. The only organisms which allow themselve's to be consumed do so as a means of propagation, and thereby ensure their continued existence. This mode cannot be valid for people, since being consumed would negate that existence. **Consonant thinking** [...] >Typical is nationally syndicated columnist Garry Wills. In column after column for over two decades he has reviled gun owners as "anti-citizens"arming " against their neighbors," "gun fetishists," "traitors," "enemies of their patria." As one of his columns puts it, "Every handgun owned in America is an implicit declaration of war on one's neighbor." In another, Wills denounces "individual self-protection" as "anti-social behavior," declaring that "every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other." [...] There is a theory in language, that parallel constructions of a sentence or paragraph have approximate or equal meanings when deciphered for context. I'm sure you are familiar with the parallel construction of the Second Amendment, such that: A well educated citizenry being necessary to the security of a free nation, the Right of the people to keep and bear computers shall not be infringed. Simply exchanging a few terms makes _no_ diference at all in the _end_ meaning of the sentences of either the above or the Second Amendment, ie., the Right to keep and bear something. The consonant thought in the above quote then, is false. Consider: "As one of his columns puts it, "Every handgun owned in America is an implicit declaration of war on one's neighbor." For that to be true, every parallel construction would also have to be true. Is it? What about all the firearms that have never been used in any crime? What about all the firearms held by the Law Enforcement Establishment? What of all the firearms used in self-defense? Try this: "Every handgun *not* owned in America is an implicit declaration of weakness to one's neighbor." Of the two - which is more true, the first, or the obverse? For the first to be true, a threat must be implicit. For a threat to be implicit, it _must_ be declared in a manner that makes itself known. If I never tell my neighbors of my ownership of arms, who could possibily feel threatened? If the United States never knew of the existance of nuclear weapons within the borders of another nation, would those arms still be a declaration of war on the U.S.? If I sell a house built directly over a geologic fault, but tell no one, and nothing ever happens, where is the threat? If I broadcast far and wide that I am totally unarmed, what threat am I? To my neighbors I am _the_ threat, because I invite crime to my house, and by extension, the neighborhood. But there follows another fault here. If I cannot defend myself, then I cannot defend my property. If I cannot defend my property, and I am at the mercy of the police to protect both myself and my property, then I do not own that property - or myself. Ownership implies the right of defense. Ergo, no defense, no Rights. If all political power truely emminates from the citizen, and if the nation derives the power of sovereignty from the citizens, then that power and the Right from which it is derived resides in the citizen. And therein lies the rub of the assertions in that article. It is based on socialism, where no one owns anything, and each person is the property of the state. For a non-truth to be true, then negative and positive logic must exchange places. In a fascist-socialist society, the citizen is state property. The citizen has no Rights, and self-defense is valid only when it is decreed as such. Therefore, in a 'Rightless' society, the citizens have power only, when allowed. That particular convolution is the opposite of our American society, where citizens have the Rights, and government has the limited power - where authorized. In our republican society, the government is the property of the citizens. Now, compare statements from that article, and figure out where those 'journalists' are taking us. ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:52:37 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Tax on Internet Its bad form to follow-up to your own post. According to today's (3-2-98) Wall St. Journal, Clinton has proposed a moritourium (sp?) on taxes on the Internet for 5 years. He has introduced a bill to do this, that will keep states away from taxing Internet commerce (based on passing through multiple State juridictions for any one transaction). Rumor is this is going to sail through the U.S. House. The obstacle is Trent Lott, who doesn't like the bill and thinks that there should be a compromise with the governors who wish to see some type of State taxation. IMNSHO, this is just another instance where Trent Lott shows his colors and demonstrates that "he just doesn't get it". Screw the states, the net commerce is just going to flow to those states who tax it least. Trent Lott - Big Taxer in Sheep's clothing. The WSJ take is that taxing net commerce will kill the development of the net and by the time the total breaks through $200B, the States won't be able to do it anyway. regards, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:39:22 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Taxing the Internet Heard a very brief news piece on the radio: "Clinton has promised to not tax the internet for five years." Have you heard anything about this? It sounded fairly ominous to me, like how would he tax the internet now? If you tax commerce on the internet, it would probably play out like mail order taxation now. State taxes apply only to in-state transactions. So, without a Federal sales tax, how are the Feds going to tax the internet at all? color me paranoid, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 04:39:30 -0800 (PST) From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: CA, FL, IL, NY, TX: test 'worker-authorization program' >X-Sender: pnet@shaw.bmd2.baremetal.com >Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 01:29:12 -0800 >To: heartland@proliberty.com >From: pnet@proliberty.com >Subject: CA, FL, IL, NY, TX: test 'worker-authorization program' >Sender: owner-heartland@proliberty.com >Reply-To: pnet@proliberty.com >X-UIDL: 0d59ff26de62a0ab2afac7c5917e27e3 > > >Companies test worker-authorization program > > >San Diego Union-Tribune, February 24, 1998 > >By Diane Lindquist > >STAFF WRITER > >Employers in California and four other states are signing up for a pilot >program that U.S. officials believe will finally thwart illegal >immigration. The plan is expected to reduce the major pull on >undocumented migrants to the United States -- jobs -- by determining if >the 50 million some employees that U.S. companies hire each year can >work in the country legally. "Most people come here for jobs, so if an >employer won't hire them because they're not authorized to work, then >that eliminates the magnet," said Susan Martin, executive director of >the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. However, some Latino groups >and advocates of reduced government are criticizing the programs as >ineffective and discriminatory against minorities. > >The pilot program was adopted in slightly altered form by the U.S. >Congress in 1996 on the recommendation of the commission, which has >disbanded. The system will be monitored for as long as four years, and >would be required of all employers throughout the United States if >Congress approves. Unlike previous schemes, the program dubbed "The >Basic Pilot" asks employers to verify employment authorization not only >with the Immigration and Naturalization Service but first with the >Social Security Administration. Furthermore, it includes U.S. citizens >as well as noncitizens. So far, 158 companies have joined the program >since it began in September. > >The plan is limited to employers in the five states with the greatest >estimated number of illegal residents -- California, Florida, Illinois, >New York and Texas. Forty-two California companies are participating, >including one small office with six people in San Diego that does not >want its identity revealed. > >The Tustin office of Interim Personnel, a nationwide temporary >employment agency, signed up for the pilot in November. The operation >processes about 100 people a month for clerical, accounting and light >industrial positions, said client service supervisor Syliva Chavez in >Tustin. "We've done hundreds," she said. "To tell the truth, all the >people have been authorized to work." About 20 percent of those applying >at the agency, however, are routinely rejected before even being >considered for work because their documents appear counterfeit, Chavez >said. Interim Personnel decided to participate in "The Basic Pilot" as a >service to its workers as well as its customers, the supervisor said. >"Now we're able to say everyone here is legally authorized to work. It's >a great selling tool for our clients," Chavez said. "And we're helping >the people who are legal and authorized to work. We did have a lot of >criticism from people who were legal and knew that others we had hired >and were earning more weren't legal." > >The Immigration and Naturalization Service is seeking other employers >for the program. Participation is voluntary and costs nothing. Companies >need a touch-tone telephone and a personal computer with modem. INS >provides the software and training. > >Once in the program, said INS spokeswoman Elaine Komis, employers will >check the Social Security number of new hires with the Social Security >Administration. If the agency is unable to determine that the person is >authorized to work, the employer will check with INS under its current >verification system. "Our hope is we're going to find a way to help >employers confirm eligibility to legally work in the United States that >is quick, easy and efficient," she said. Another pilot, the "Citizen >Attestation Pilot," continues a previous INS test program involving only >non-citizen employees. > >The agency is asking employers to volunteer and will run that pilot >program in the states where the interest is highest. The programs were >designed to address the failures of legislation passed in 1986 that >imposed sanctions on employers. The law punished employers only if they >knowingly hired undocumented workers, so fraudulent documents >proliferated. "An employer was caught between a rock and a hard place. >If they accepted documents they were subject to employer sanctions. If >they turned the documents down, they were open to charges of >discrimination," said Martin, now the director of the Institute for the >Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. > >The pilot programs, however, are drawing almost as much criticism as the >employer sanction provisions. Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy >of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino political advocacy group in >Washington D.C., claims the data on which "The Basic Pilot" program >relies is often flawed or missing. "Social Security didn't start asking >about citizenship until 1972 and didn't start entering it into their >system until several years before," she said. "Our concern is it's not >going to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish and that it's >going to wreak havoc in people's lives. And those people are likely to >be Latino or Asian," Munoz said. > >Stephen Moore, immigration analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington, >D.C., said those illegally in the United States can obtain Social >Security numbers that a phone check cannot verify. "I'm certain it's not >going to work, and just like employer sanctions ... they'll say we'll >need an even more invasive technique," he said. "I just view it as going >down the wrong path." > >- Tom Paine > > >============================================================================== >To unsubscribe send Message: unsubscribe; To: heartland-request@proliberty.com >============================================================================== > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:38:06 CST From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Not So Pro-Gun Nominees Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, AND PRINT OUT AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS, SPREAD THE WORD! Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE >From Behanna & NRA Director Dr. Fiora Mike Haas said in reguard to this year NRA Nominating committee Selections: Some great people here... Rep. Bob Barr, Sen. Larry Craig, John Milius, and of course, the others... now this is a SLATE TO BEAT ANTI-GUNNERS! Chris Behanna Replys: Slight problem: Larry Craig *IS* an anti-gunner: he voted for the Lautenberg gun grab as a standalone amendment on the Senate floor (see Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg., Congressional Record, September 12, 1996, p. S10380), and voted against tabling the Kohl amendment (the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996) (see Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg., Congressional Record, September 12, 1996, p. S10396). The motion to table failed 72-27, at which point Senator Kohl asked to vitiate the yeas and nays, which was ordered without objection, and the amendment was agreed to. If Craig is such a stalwart pro-gunner, why did he vote against tabling the amendment, and then why did he allow it to come into force without objection? The Congressional Record of September 12, 1996 shows *NO* instances of Sen. Craig rising to speak against either the Lautenberg or Kohl amendments. Perhaps he's not as pro-gun as he styles himself. Perhaps he's afraid of taking a hard vote for which he might get beat up in the press. Perhaps he's too willing to sell us out in order to avoid bad PR from the news media. Mike Haas said: I like the idea of congressmen and senators on the board of the NRA! Chris Behanna Replys: It's a bad idea. Politicians don't want to take hard votes, and have a conflict of interest when they desire to serve on the Board of an organization that *must*, if it is to fulfill its obligation to its members, hold their feet to the fire. Their effect will be to moderate the Board's support for principled stands for our rights. NRA Director Dr. Dan Fiora said in another post: I think we left out a critical message in our ads. We should have pointed out that the other side has four candidates (Craig, Barr, Volkmer & Young) on their slate that voted for Lautenberg. Maybe circulation on the Internet will help? Note that they even turned against us the notice of the lawsuit by not stating that the judge order the NRA (all of us) to follow the membership mandated Bylaw. The announcement will appear to the uninformed member as an attempt by Fezell et al to undermine the normal process of publishing the Nom. Com. report. Members expect to see it since it has been published so regularly. 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees Jr. 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, SC 29657. 4. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Mar 98 17:08:46 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Your papers please... (fwd) On Mar 3, JT McBride wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] How many infringements we take for granted today! >In the "Know Your Rights" Dept, I came across this article recently on >another mailing list... > >-------------------------------- >-------------------------------- > >Identification Before Flying? > >by: Betsy Ross > >In the last two years, everyone flying on a commercial airline has stepped >up to an airline's ticket counter and heard the agent recite a familiar >litany. The monologue goes, "has your bag been unattended; have you >accepted gifts from a stranger; can I see your identification please?" The >traveler docilely murmurs answers, and produces a driver's license or some >equivalent. > >As a die-hard Constitutionalist, I believe that we still have an absolute, >unfettered, God-given right to travel from point A to point B without >permission from the state -- in the air, as well as on land. This Nazi >procedure of "your papers, please" has never been appropriate for our >country. I have had occasion to travel a good deal in the last several >months, and on those trips I decided to research and test this issue about >the necessity for producing identification. I have talked with agents, and >their supervisors, of several major airlines in cities across America, and >have gradually pieced together a rather complete picture of the real legal >situation regarding our right to travel. > >Next, I tested this finding with several airlines. When asked for >identification, I produced only my Sam's Club card, or my travel agent's ID >card, or a Costco card. These are all picture ID's, but they are privately >issued, and do not even have a signature on them. The airline agents just >freaked out, and demanded to see some state-issued ID. They routinely told >me that "it was federal law!" The government absolutely required me to >cough up an "official" ID card, without which the agent couldn't even THINK >of letting me on the plane. > >I told the agents that I could not find any federal regulation mandating >that type of identification, and then asked them to cure my ignorance and >please cite the regulation. Now, at this point, individual airline agents >have reacted differently. Some called in their supervisor. Alaska Air >employees were the most gracious; Northwest agents were the worst -- they >were rude, belligerent and hostile brats. But they all folded, every >time. A particularly nasty Northwest employee marched me all the way back >to the electronic detection equipment, made me pass through it a second >time, and had the guard thoroughly search my carry-on bag. The same airline >agent-from-hell actually made rude and demeaning remarks to me as we >trudged back to the counter -- and then she let me on the plane. > >Alaska Air was much more reasonable -- the agent just issued my seat pass, >and commented that some people seem tenaciously to hold the thought that >they have the right to travel without producing government ID -- to which I >responded, "yes, amazing, isn't it -- and I'm one of them." In Seattle, >an agent said AS HE HANDED ME MY TICKET, "you know, if you don't show me >any government-issued ID, I can't let you board the plane." I replied, Yes, >I understand. But I didn't, and you are. With a smile, he just said, "have >a nice trip." So I have flown several times using only my meager privately >issued picture ID cards. > >Every time I used this strategy, I noticed that the agent put an orange >sticker on my checked bags, and also on my seat pass on the ticket. >Several agents divulged that this is the policy they are supposed to follow >when a person does not show government ID. The bags simply wait in the >baggage room until the person presents the matching seat pass as he/she >actually boards the plane; then the bags go on board. > >On my next trip, I decided to push the envelope even further. When the >Alaska Air agent made the usual perfunctory request for identification, I >put on my best face, smiled sweetly, and said, "Gee, I'm so sorry, but I >just don't have any ID I could show you." To my speechless astonishment, >the agent just said, "no problem -- just fill out this simple form, and >present it to the counter at the airplane gate. I watched as the familiar >orange sticker again went on my bag. I repeated the same scenario with >Horizon Air on another trip. I have now flown twice without producing any >identification whatsoever. > >Northwest was actually instrumental in advancing my education about this >issue. I was so aggravated by the insolent and hostile treatment that their >employee gave me, (hopefully former employee, after the blistering letter I >sent to the company president), that I demanded to see a supervisor on the >spot. I then demanded that he produce the relevant federal regulations >RIGHT NOW, or face personal liability for authorizing an unreasonable >search and seizure, dereliction of duty, fraud, conspiracy, civil rights >deprivation and any other legal buzz words I could think of at that moment >which would justify a lawsuit against him personally, as well as his >employer. Like everyone else, he couldn't show me any statute or >regulations. He even admitted that there are none. > >However, he did produce a copy of Security Directive 96-05, which the >Federal Aviation Agency issued to all airlines in August of 1996. Its >wording is very instructive; it reads as follows: > >1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER - A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF >AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, >AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. B. THE >AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET -- >EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW. C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, >OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A >"SELECTEE." CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW. [no >letter] CLEAR SELECTEE'S CHECKED AND CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPICIOUS >ARTICLES DISCOVERED BY THE QUESTIONS ASKED; A. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON A >FLIGHT WITHIN THE 48 CONTINENTAL US STATES, OR TO MEXICO, OR TO CANADA, >ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 1. EMPTY THE >LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED >SCREENER, [remember the actions taken by northwest] OR; 2. BAG-MATCH -- >ENSURE THE BAG IS NOT TRANSPORTED ON THE AIRCRAFT IF THE PASSENGER DOES >NOT BOARD. [remember all those orange stickers] B. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON >AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT -- CHECKED LUGGAGE, CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPECT >ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED ONLY BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD; EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR >ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY QUALIFIED SCREENERS. > >This document apparently goes on for ten more pages; the Northwest >supervisor gave me only the first page, which contains the information >printed above. > >The next time I refused to produce ID and the agent freaked, I told her, >"just tap up Sec-Dec 96-5 on your computer, and go to Paragraph 1, Section >C. Designate me as a 'selectee,' and proceed accordingly. She apparently >thought I was an FAA undercover employee, because she said that she was >"tired of you federal guys coming around" and literally spying on airline >agents, "coercing us into lying to people, and essentially being the 'bag >man' for an activity which has no legal requirement." I told her that I >could not agree more. > >Another airline employee later confirmed that FAA agents often engage in >such entrapment activities, to make sure that airline agents parrot the >government party line about state-issued ID. I also hit pay dirt in a >discussion with another, much nicer Northwest agent on the East coast. In a >candid conversation, he told me that FAA personnel had held training >sessions with all airline agents in the fall of 1996. Agents were informed >directly by the FAA that they absolutely could not bar an American citizen >from boarding a plane, even if a passenger refused to produce any >identification at all! I understand Delta Airline is facing two large >lawsuits because employees twice denied this reality, and actually twice >kept off a plane a passenger who had only private ID to show. Anyone want >to own an airline, courtesy of a judge? I have personally flown Delta with >only a private travel card, so I guess they already had their hand slapped. > >Yet another agent in the Midwest admitted that airline personnel were >deliberately and knowingly coercing people into showing government ID by >saying "it's the law." According to him the reality is that the companies >are simply tired of people selling their frequent-flyer tickets. The >airlines wanted to stem this practice by checking everyone's ID, but knew >there would be BIG problems if they instituted this procedure as a private >corporate policy. It was so much more convenient to say it was federal law >and make the government the scapegoat. So this policy meets the airlines' >private financial goals, and the government's goal of ever-increasing >social control. > >If no one complains or asserts their rights regarding travel, then another >freedom is "poof" gone. Our children watch this happen, and grow up >thinking that the state has both the right to define our identity by >issuing documents saying who we are, and also the right to require us to >produce them on demand. > >Reprinted from "The American's Bulletin," 3536 N Pacific Hwy, Medford, OR >97501, May 1997, (541)-779-7709 > >Copyright © 1997 Harvest Trust. All rights reserved. www.harvest-trust.org >Revised: January 21, 1998. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 98 00:18:45 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: VETERANS BENEFITS (fwd) I suspect this is some scam to find out where our Vets are, but some will find this to be essential info anyway. On Mar 03, Patricia Fosness wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is interesting. First, that it's a nasty stab in the back to our veterans, and second, that it essentially forces every vet to come forward and register over the next 6 months or else lose their medical benefits for life. I figure this is legit since it came out through corporate channels. Anyway, I guess anyone here who either is a vet or knows one should be aware of this. > >To: All U.S. Military Veterans >Fm: ...... US West Veterans Association >Date: 02 March 1998 > >Subject: Veteran Benefits > >First, thanks for the information, Jimmy. >This message was sent to all Legionnaires from Northglenn, CO, >Amercian Legion Post 22. > > ATTENTION VETERANS > >If you are a veteran, have a family member who is a veteran or know >somebody who is, this news may be of some interest to you or them. >please feel free to pass it along. > >The President of the U.S. has recently signed into law a bill that >affects all veterans. This law states in effect that if a veteran >has not registered at a Veterans Affairs Hospital since Oct. 1, 1996, >then on Oct. 1, 1998 he or she will loose all medical benefits for >life. > >To make it worse, the V.A. cannot notify veterans about it. That >information must be disseminated via word of mouth or by letter. >We called the local V.A. office and found out this information >is true. > >They recommended that everyone eligible for benefits come by >their office, and sign up prior to the October 1st deadline, >irregardless of whether they have received treatment at a V.S. >hospital since 10/01/96. This way no one will slip through the >the cracks. > >You will need to bring your DD-214 to your local V.A. office and >it will only take about 5 minutes to complete the form. This will >maintain your veterans benefits. If you cannot locate your DD-214, >go to the V.A. office and they can help you obtain a copy. > Pat Fosness - -------------------------------------------------------------- "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamaties" - George Mason - -------------------------------------------------------------- [------------------------- 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, 4 Mar 1998 08:25:09 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Suspected agent for China linked to drug kingpin and Clinton - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 07:26:54 -0500 From: jim hofmann Subject: CAS: WT: Sieong tied with Cambodian drugkingpin 3/4/98 from http://www.washtimes.com (investigative page) Suspected agent for China linked to drug kingpin By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES In Indonesian businessman suspected of being a Chinese agent who sought to influence the 1996 elections is believed to have formed a partnership with a reputed Cambodian drug kingpin, federal authorities said. Ted Sioeng, who met with President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore during the 1996 campaign, has been spotted by U.S. authorities in Phnom Penh with Theng Bunma, named by the State Department in 1994 as a major heroin trafficker. Mr. Sioeng, whose business holdings include two California hotels and a Chinese-language newspaper in the Los Angeles area, is a major focus of a Justice Department task force probe and a House Government Reform and Oversight Committee investigation concerning accusations he sought to influence U.S. foreign policy with campaign donations during the 1996 elections. He is the first person identified as a suspected Chinese agent in the ongoing investigations. Meanwhile, the House committee yesterday wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno seeking advice on possibly granting immunity to two witnesses in its campaign-finance probe, both of whom could testify on Democratic fund-raiser Charles Yah Lin Trie. Mr. Trie, a longtime Arkansas friend and supporter of Mr. Clinton's, pleaded not guilty last month to federal charges of conspiring to buy political influence through the illegal diversion of campaign cash to the Democratic National Committee. Trial is set for October. Committee Chairman Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, said Maria P. Mapili, Mr. Trie's bookkeeper, and Charlie Chiang, a local restaurateur, have "direct knowledge" of Mr. Trie's activities. He said Mrs. Mapili controlled the books for Mr. Trie's company, Daihatsu International, and knows about his receipt of foreign money. He said Mr. Trie and Mr. Chiang exchanged "large amounts of money." The Justice Department is reviewing the letter. Mr. Sioeng's suspected ties to the Chinese government, the sources said, surfaced in 1996 in communications intercepted by U.S. intelligence sources between Beijing and the Chinese Embassy in Washington. The communications reportedly outlined a scheme to increase China's influence with congressional, state and local officials. Mr. Sioeng is a friend of former Lippo Group executive, Commerce Department official and DNC fund-raiser John Huang, another focus of the task-force probe. Records show his bank account got wire transfers of more than $2 million from two Hong Kong holding companies at the same time he was contributing to Mr. Clinton's re-election campaign. The holding companies handled his business dealings in China. In July 1996, Mr. Sioeng sat next to Mr. Clinton at a fund-raiser in California and has appeared at other events involving the president and Mr. Gore, including a February 1996 dinner with other targets of the task force and House probes, including Mr. Trie. Mr. Theng, whose purported $400 million business empire includes a hotel, a bank, an import-export company and various other properties, has been identified by the State Department as being "closely and heavily involved in drug trafficking in Cambodia." U.S. drug authorities said Cambodia, Thailand, Burma and Laos produce most of the world's heroin; Cambodia is considered the major transit point. Mr. Theng has denied the accusations. U.S. intelligence officials believe Mr. Theng, one of Cambodia's wealthiest businessmen, has contributed heavily to the cash-short Cambodian government, much of the money going to the military, where it was used to hire soldiers to protect his heroin business. Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican and chairman of the House Rules Committee, which first questioned foreign ties to the 1996 election, has asked Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to explain how Mr. Theng obtained visas to enter the country, particularly those enabling him to gain access to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore during the 1996 campaign. The department has said it is reviewing the issuance of visas to Mr. Theng. =46RONT PAGE | POLITICS | OPINION | INVESTIGATIVE | INTERNATIONAL | BUSINESS | LETTERS | SUBSCRIBE Copyright =A9 1998 News World Communications, Inc. - - -------- jhofmann@erols.com ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #82 ************************