From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #86 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, March 16 1998 Volume 02 : Number 086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:15:55 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: contributions for Boundary County / (fwd) On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > Subject: Re: contributions for Boundary County / (fwd) > > Brad, > > Thanks for forwarding the info. Check's in the mail. > > Regards, Skip. > Ditto. It took 20 years to get a successful prosecution of those responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. "Patience and perseverance accomplish all things." The name of the game is "How much justice can you afford?" The Feds will play the "pocketbook attrition" game, no doubt about it. Any contribution, of whatever size, will be an "attaboy" for the prosecution and will let them know the Grassroots back them up. Dig deep. Never quit. Regards, Harry > > Brad wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > Finished my homework re. checking on the fund for the Boundary County > > (ID) Prosecutor's Office in the prosecution of the federal agents > > involved in the Weaver case. There is indeed such a fund and donations > > are being gratefully accepted. The prosecutor's office has not solicited > > public donations in this or any other case and will not ask for any. But > > their opponent has deep pockets (ours) and they do not, so every bit > > helps. > > > > Checks or money orders should be made payable to BOUNDARY COUNTY > > PROSECUTOR"S OFFICE and sent to: > > > > Boundary County Prosecutor's Office > > P.O. Box 1148 > > Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 > > > > I called the office at 208-267-7545 to verify this information, and had > > a very brief but cordial chat with the staffer who answered the phone. > > They are doing all of us a great and unappreciated legal service by > > going forward with this case, and they know it. I have heard of legal > > defense funds but never a prosecution assistance fund. We do indeed live > > in interesting times. > > > > Donations should be made ASAP as things are moving forward with this > > case. Please pass this along to anyone you know who might be willing to > > help. > > > > - > > - > > - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:10:40 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: (fwd) Commemorate Qana Massacre (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- COMMEMORATE QANA April 18, 1998, will mark the second anniversary of the Qana massacre, during which more than 100 civilians, including women and children, were killed by Israeli forces. The victims were seeking safe haven in a UN compound after fleeing Israeli attacks on their homes in southern Lebanon. As the anniversary of the Qana massacre approaches, chapters and activists in cities and campuses around the country are encouraged to hold commemorative events. A videotape produced by Lebanese filmmaker Seyed Kaado is available to be shown to the public from ADC. The half-hour documentary, entitled "Qana," includes interviews with survivors, families of the victims, and UN representatives. To obtain a copy of the videotape, please send a check made payable to ADC to: ADC, 4201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20008. Cost: $15.00, plus $5.00 shipping & handling. For more information, e-mail gkhouri@adc.org ________ ______ American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee /\ |_ ___ \ / ____| 4201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300 / \ | | \ | | | Washington, D.C. 20008, U.S.A. / /\ \ | | | | | | Tel: (202) 244-2990, Fax: (202) 244-3196 / ____ \ _| |_ / | | |____ E-mail: adc@adc.org /_/ \_\________/ \______| Web : http://www.adc.org - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 15:28:21 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: Why I like conspiracy theory Not to compare myself otherwise with him but, like Einstein, I don't believe in quantum mechanics. (Einstein said, "God does not play dice." ) However, I've made a nice living by pretending that I do believe. Similarly, I think there is useful information in much of the "conspiracy theory" floating about the net, even if I don't believe it all. It's often delightfully predictive of future events. Every now and then, somebody claims on the net that NWO lackeys are setting up "detention camps" or converting military bases to "concentration camps." Which of course is pooh-pooed. Well look what just showed up in my e-mail-box... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 14:59:28 -0500 (EST) From: NRA Alerts To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: CRIMESTRIKE: Violent Criminals May Benefit From Court Ruling NRA CrimeStrike's CrimeWatch Weekly Breaking news on critical crime-fighting issues, policies and legislation Vol. 4, No. 10 March 10, 1997 [...] Tents Figure In Alaska's Plan To Reduce Prison Crowding Superior Court Judge Karen Hunt is considering a plan to reduce Alaska's prison overcrowding by a combination of efforts that include sending 256 more inmates to a private prison in Arizona and lodging others in tents (CWW 2/17/98). State corrections officials, facing a court deadline, delivered the plan on Monday. Under a court agreement reached in the 1980s, the state is limited to 2,691 inmates in existing facilities, a limit that will be exceeded by nearly 600 sometime next month, according to Associated Press. Also contemplated in the plan are moving more prisoners into community residential centers or halfway houses, developing a secure halfway house for more dangerous offenders, and sending 60 prisoners to an as-yet uncompleted drug treatment center in Valdez. Another 125 inmates could lodged in tents this summer. While corrections officials grapple with the overflow, legislators are debating a proposal to convert Fort Greely, an Army base slated for decommissioning, into an 800-bed private prison. Gov. Tony Knowles' administration has proposed expansion of a regional jail and a state prison to solve the overcrowding problem. [...] [Yes, I know this proposal is to house "real criminals" on an Army base, but these days it's awfully easy to become a "real criminal." Just like it was in Nazi Germany. -bd] - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 00:27:13 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #76 (fwd) On Mar 15, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia March 15, 1998 #76 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------ RETRIBUTION IS IN THE AIR The White House learned a few lessons last week. The presidents, and their minions, thought they were so much better and smarter than everyone else. Now they know that few in Washington (or the country) see them as they see themselves. As it turns out, very few Americans would want their children to emulate either Bill or Hillary Clinton -- or anyone else in this White House, for that matter. Hillary learned why it is not a very good idea for the target of a criminal investigation to attempt to publicly disgrace the prosecutor working on the case. The disinformation and propaganda campaign she has been running out of the back room of the White House was told, in no uncertain words, to shut up. Four previous United States Attorneys General publicly agreed, in unison, that Hillary's cabal had (probably) committed obstruction of justice. The four previous attorneys general politely called it, "influencing and impeding an ongoing criminal investigation and intimidating possible witnesses and even investigators." We agree, and suggest that the whole crew be arrested. In a piece last February 15 we added the word "conspiracy" to what the previous AG's said, and called Hillary's action an ongoing criminal enterprise. Anyway, evidently the previous AG's put Janet Reno between a rock and a hard place by publicly asking her to tell Hillary to stifle that nonsense. Bill Clinton got a little surprise, too. It seems that House Republicans have had about enough of the Clintons' shenanigans. It also seems the House leadership has been following the activities of Independent Council Kenneth Starr's investigation lately. But, it wasn't till the House actually budgeted $1.45-million to hire 18 new staff investigators for the impeachment hearings that the White House really took notice. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) explained the additional staff by saying they will be hired primarily to conduct the most thorough scrutiny of Justice Department programs in nearly 20 years. Other House members say they are for the impeachment inquiry. On top of all that, the Senate Government Affairs Committee report on illegal campaign finance was recently released. That can be found at: www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/ Unfortunately, the Thompson Committee missed a few prime perpetrators in the Democrat's campaign contribution crime wave. Most notably, the name of the co-chairman of the Democratic party during the last presidential campaign cycle is missing. Senator Christopher Dodd is ultimately responsible for everything that went on under his watch. A number of other senators, including Kennedy, Feinstein and Boxer, were also involved in one way or another. But it is Dodd who, as the elected official in charge at the DNC, must bear the brunt of the responsibility. On the other hand, the vice-president who knows "no controlling legal authority" for some campaign finance laws was taken to school too. Al Gore says the Senate report's political slant is "very obvious," because it concludes that he knew that an illegal 1996 Democratic Party fund-raiser held at a California Buddhist temple was a Democratic Party fund-raiser. And, as Gore told Scripps Howard News Service reporter James W. Brosnan, he does not believe the organizer of that event, Maria Hsia, is an agent for China as the Thompson Committee report charged. Gore also said that he was never given a briefing or warning by U.S. intelligence agencies or the FBI about Mrs. Hsia. Apparently, we are to believe that Gore spends his time wandering the halls of the White House never talking to anyone. Because, by that time, there were nearly 200 people around him who knew all about the communist Chinese government connections. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton even invited some of the agents from Red China over to the White House for coffee on a few occasions. "I think the disappointment mostly felt about the report is that it didn't do what it was supposed to do, namely build a base of support for meaningful campaign- finance reform," Gore repeated from his well rehearsed list of White House talking points. "The report wasn't even produced until the debate on campaign-finance reform was over with." Yeah. And it's always interesting to hear how crooks think laws they intentionally violated should be changed. The Thompson Committee outlined some of how the communist Chinese government worked to subvert our election process and buy influence from two branches of government. Unfortunately, the Senate Committee also locked up all the juicy details under the guise of national security. Also missing is the fact that Bill Clinton inappropriately sent his campaign people to a foreign country to interfere in their election: Tony Blair. One of two things will happen, probably before mid-summer: Starr will dump the whole mess on Henry Hyde and his House Committee, and walk away from it all. Or, Starr is going to indict Hillary and a dozen others, with Bill as an unindicted coconspirator, and then stick around to aide the House with impeachment proceedings. Right now, the latter seems most appropriate. Retribution. JUDGES MUST OBEY THE RULE OF LAW Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, it is the obligation of State Courts to defend each and every clause of the U.S. Constitution. So says the United States Supreme Court. Repeatedly. Below is an excerpt from a very large book named: "Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States." The Constitutional case law was prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and is available in Federal Bookstores for about $100. The text quoted immediately below can be found on the Internet at: www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art6.html We removed the Court citations to save space, but they are all available at the address above. This is very important stuff, and we will explain exactly why shortly. First, the duty of State judges -- and, by extension, the duty all State elected and appointed officials taking the oath of office. - ----------------------------- The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation "is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States -- 'the supreme law of the land'." State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court. While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature. The existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of subjects has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal common law, it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court rulings on state courts. - ----------------------------- So, in the second paragraph above, we learn that "State courts are bound then to give effect to . . . the [United States] Constitution . . . as well as the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court." That could be a convenient quirk in the law, if we care to use it properly. For instance, in a 1992 opinion, New York vs. U.S. (91-543, 1992), the United States Supreme Court ordered: "Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the 'consent' of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached- upon Branch approves the encroachment. . . . The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the 'consent' of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States." . . . "States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead 'leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,' (The Federalist No. 39), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment." . . . "Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." In last year's Printz opinion (95-1478, 1997), the United States Supreme Court expanded on that order: "The Constitution's structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of 'dual sovereignty.' Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text." . . . "Finally, and most conclusively in these cases, the Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." In Printz, the Supreme Court went beyond the case at hand a little and even mentioned federal regulatory programs imposed on States that are tied to grants and federal funds. And, while the Court did not exactly forbid these schemes by program name, it did clearly state that they do not conform to Constitutional tradition: "Even assuming they represent assertion of the very same congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are no more probative [proof -- ed.] than the statute before us of a constitutional tradition that lends meaning to the text. Their persuasive force is far outweighed by almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice." . . . So, as the Court summarizes, States are sovereign jurisdictions and not under the control of the federal government: "Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear 'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." . . . "We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." Putting this all together, we learn that we can go to a local State court for relief from any regulation the federal government forced, ordered or otherwise coerced the State government to enact or enforce. For instance, if the U.S. EPA is forcing your State EPA to enact regulations that require tail pipe emissions testing of automobiles, that would be forbidden under the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in New York and Printz. The federal bureaucracy may not (and must not) order State officials to do anything. Period. Compliance by a State official would then be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Any State judge must then toss the regulation out. Unfortunately, the federal government may then (sometimes) come back and do the regulating themselves. State officials, however, may not. THE DECLINE OF THE CONSTITUTION Twice, in as many weeks, I have received reports from readers saying they were very distressed by certain comments made to local groups by a Member of Congress. I have also heard similar statements personally, on occasion, so didn't immediately consider the significance in the grand scheme of things. The distressing off-the-cuff statement from the elected Lords and Ladies of the Hill usually is related in the form: 'I don't pay much attention to the Constitutional aspects of these bills. I'm more interested in the bottom line.' And that, dear reader, is exactly true! First, there is no way they have time to read all of those bills and continue the expected production of that law factory. So, they only read (if anything) the executive summaries. Second, there is $1.2-billion in lobbyist money spread around Washington every year. Some lobbyists give Members of Congress money, and other considerations, to effect their vote and other lobbyists give money, and whatever, as a reward for a favorable vote. The money given to Members of Congress is commonly called "campaign funds." However, the considerations can also include "fact finding" trips, fund-raising parties and cushy jobs for friends and family. For instance, how many Members of Congress paid for their overseas trips last year? Zero. Or, how many Members of Congress are visiting constituents on those paid trips to American cities beginning with the word Palm (as in Palm Beach and Palm Springs)? Two. Washington lobbyists spend $100-million a month just to influence legislation. We constituents cannot keep up with that type of cash outlay in "campaign contributions," of course. And, even if we could, we cannot be there to quiz our Congress member on the bill of interest. There's just no way they would give one or two of us the amount of time they give a lobbyist with deep pockets who has other lobbyist friends with deep pockets. Anyway, to mention Constitutional issues in a Congressional office is probably one of the quickest ways to end a meeting. It's always best to stick to a single issue with them, and never mention things like honoring one's oath of office or that hackneyed old concept once called "rule of law." Unfortunately, this is becoming true with the courts nowadays, too. Most judges hate Constitutional issues because they might actually have to make an important decision. And, chances are great that decision would be unpopular with one or another group of Americans -- especially the lawmakers and bureaucrats the judges associate with. So, judges tend to do anything in their power to insure such issues are not presented in their courts. Clearly, there is nothing we citizens can do about this treachery by judges, either. They know that. Only the Senate can remove a judge, and chances are great that the Senate approved of the law causing the Constitutional issue under question. So, it was very distressing to learn that some of this attitude has even migrated over to the United States Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, whom we often agree with, recently let the cat out of the bag at an address to a leadership meeting of the American Medical Association. "It is not supposed to be our judgment as to what is the socially desirable answer to all of these questions. That's supposed to be the judgment of Congress, and we do our job correctly when we apply what Congress has written as basically and honestly as possible," Scalia reported. "In my Constitution, if you want the death penalty, pass a statute. If you don't want the death penalty, pass a statute the other way. You want a right to abortion, create it the way most rights are created in a democracy: pass a law. If you don't want it, pass a law the other way. And if you want a right to (physician- assisted) suicide, the same," Scalia told the AMA leaders. We, of course, disagree in part. One of the most basic functions of the United States Supreme Court is to insure to the people that the actions of the other two branches of government are within the boundaries set down within the Constitution. Before FDR intimidated the Court into approving socialism, the Supreme Court took that responsibility seriously. In some recent decisions, the Supreme Court indicated that it may again be steering a course back to the "original intent" of the Constitution. In many opinions, however, the Court has ruled totally and completely against the "original intent" of the Constitution's authors and in favor of womb to tomb control of the American people by the federal government. So, when Mr. Justice Scalia says; "Having the Constitution mean whatever five out of nine justices think it ought to mean these days is not flexibility but rigidity;" we respectfully disagree. We want and expect "rigidity" in government. There must again be bright lines drawn over which the federal government may not cross. For instance, the words "shall not" have very strong meaning to most Americans. That should signal rigidity. We see no reason these words should have any other meaning to the Court. NEWS ON COMPUTING Somehow, I was lucky enough to get on a newsletter list for a publication called "Edupage." Therefore, once or twice a week a short, very well written, newsletter is delivered full of information on computing that I never seem to see anywhere else. It is never a very long publication, but it is always interesting. So . . . I ripped off one section for Heads Up readers. Subscription information is included. - ----------------------------- THIRD WORLD PROTESTS TAX-FREE INTERNET A coalition of developing nations, led by Egypt, India and Pakistan, are protesting a World Trade Organization proposal for an Internet "free trade zone," saying that such a development would reinforce the dominance of North America and European countries in the online world. The coalition is proposing that no decisions regarding the creation of a tax-free Internet trading zone be made until the problem of Western dominance of the Internet is resolved. Trade officials predict that negotiations on creating the free-trade zone will begin next year at the earliest. Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: send mail to: listproc@educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage Ralph Ellison (if your name is Ralph Ellison; otherwise, substitute your own name). -- End -- [------------------------- 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: Sun, 15 Mar 98 16:14:44 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [FFNET V2N21] (FWD) Citizen Soldiers (fwd) On Mar 15, Donald L. Cline wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ============================================================================= Volume 2 FREEDOM FIGHTER NET No. 21 ============================================================================= This is a manual list. If you want off, just e-mail me. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 15, 1998 Y2k: 1 year, 9 months, 2 weeks, and counting (to fiscal year 2000) [And about a year less than that before the sewage hits the ventilation] This is a forward from another list. Like the list owner who prefaces this message below, I foward it VERY without comment. ====================Forwarded Message Begins==================== Well, this should get some juices flowing. I know this is what MANY are saying privately -- some VERY privately. Here's someone who WROTE it, but isn't quite ready to sign it. Author requested to remain anonymous. Gee, I wonder why? I'm forwarding it without comment -- VERY without comment! ;-) Subject: Citizen Soldiers ******************************* , If you decide to use this, please delete all sig and header ID. I am practicing more these days, for good reason. All the best- ************************************************************ I have just returned from a meeting with a true constitutionalist attorney here in town, one with past and quite recent important victories in the area of tax issues. His conclusions about the in IRS practice mirrors those of at least three other attorneys of similar caliber around the country, which I have met in the last four years. I thought I would sum up his position, and offer a conclusion of my own. Basically, he intimated we as Americans must finally realize there is no such thing as an unassailable constitutional protection in this republic anymore. Political expedient, corruption, cronyism, self-interest et al have replaced the iron clad guarantees of freedom from unlawful prosecution, and the unswerving strength of the courts to curtail inroads on our liberties. Face it, we're on our own; there is not and CAN NEVER BE any 'silver bullet.' So what's new, you ask? Check the endless well reasoned posts on this list, as well as the other lists many of you monitor. We know the law better than the DOJ, we have higher judicial scruples than the judges, and we're losing ground every day. In essence, we are fielding the GE College Bowl winners against the Gestapo. I have spent endless hours over the last five years studying and applying the law, contacting the IRS, my congressman, the General Counsel to the Secretary of the Treasury...and the only difference it has made is that I understand PERFECTLY the gargantuan fraud this government (sic) is perpetrating on it's citizens. The question arises: do I continue the futile? I think not. IMHO we should ALL be deciding on the level of civil disobedience we are willing to engage in. If this is the law, we should all become LAWBREAKERS, encourage others to become LAWBREAKERS, be steadfast on juries to free LAWBREAKERS, stand tall in the rightness of being LAWBREAKERS. As you well know, this is not just an IRS issue. Our gun rights, our religious rights, our free speech and association rights, contractual rights, privacy rights, rights against self-incrimination, all are under massive assault every day. We could work full time and not stanch 10% of the crap that passes for law coming out of Washington on a slow day. I would encourage everyone to think seriously about how you can make a difference, by yourself quietly without fanfare, by monkey wrenching, disinformation, shunning of government workers, and any and all LAWBREAKING which doesn't harm innocent people. Now, we should begin to rock the boat for those who have been getting to ride on top for so long. Think this idea stinks? What level of effort would it take to maintain a steady state against the massive government intrusion into our lives? Can you give that time, year in and year out, for the rest of your life? What level of moral atrocity and abrogation of your rights would it take to make you change your mind? By the time that level was reached, would resistance like this be futile? Are we morally right in our position, irrespective of our individual religious beliefs? If so, don't we have the unalterable RIGHT to do everything it takes to reverse this unbearable situation? ****************** distribute freely ****************** ====================Forwarded Message Ends==================== The first rule of an effective fight for freedom is this: When government says you have to do something because of some law, _look_ _the_ _damned_ _law_ _up_! 95% of the time the law they cite has little or nothing to do with what they are telling you to do, or if it does, it doesn't apply to you. - -- 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:21:58 -0600 From: Chuck Scanland Subject: test, please ignore 3/16/98 0724 CST - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:12:06 -0800 (PST) From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: For Health Freedom Fighters World Wide: Thomas Paine on Liberty >Errors-To: >X-Sender: jham@pop3.concentric.net >Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:40:50 -0500 >To: "abrecher@arxc.com" >From: John Hammell >Subject: For Health Freedom Fighters World Wide: Thomas Paine on Liberty >X-UIDL: 93a4ec434b2a7e16608d307298d2b414 > > >I stumbled across this quote while surfing the net, and would like to send >it out to health freedom fighters world wide. Thomas Paine was a pretty >good rabble rouser in his day, and this quote has as much significance >today as we battle the tyranny of the multinational pharmaceutical industry >and the New World Order, as it did in Paine's time during the American >Revolution. > > >"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the >sunshine patriot will, in the crisis, shrink from the service of their >country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and >woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this >consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the >triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness >only that gives everything it's value. Heaven knows how to put a proper >price on it's goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an >article as freedom should not be highly rated." > Thomas >Paine >****************************************** >Donations Needed- Need Help to Keep Helper On >International Advocates for Health Freedom >John C. Hammell, Legislative Advocate >2411 Monroe St.#2 Hollywood, FL 33020 USA >800-333-2553, 954-929-2905, FAX 954-929-0507, >FAX ON DEMAND 954-927-8795,jham@concentric.net >http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/hammell/index.html >HERBS ARE _NOT_ DRUGS! HELP PASS HR 2868 >THE CONSUMER HEALTH FREE SPEECH ACT!!! > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:23:58 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: test, please ignore At 07:21 -0600 3/16/1998, Chuck Scanland wrote: >3/16/98 0724 CST > > > >- TEST, Please ignore? Ignore the test? Oh come on, Chuck, you know that I can't ignore a good test. So, tell me, what is the test all about? And, what kind of grading system are your using? Oh, wait! I get it, you want to see if we can ignore your test? That's it, ain't it? Did I pass? ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 98 14:14:57 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AdvAM: Clinton Strategy Changes (fwd) On Mar 16, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network =A9 1997 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article for NON-PROFIT purposes. Profit-making publications must have *express consent* to reprint any AdvAM materials. Thank you. CLINTON CHANGES TACK IN WAKE OF WILLEY INTERVIEW Maybe it just takes a Willey to catch a Willie. In the aftermath of Kathleen Willey's television interview on "60 Minutes= ," President Bill Clinton is saying he has *clear memories* of his Oval Offi= ce anteroom encounter with her, and that nothing happened that could be cons= trued as a sexual assault. After years and years of responding to allegations of misconduct with protestations of poor recollection, Bill Clinton's memory has suddenly im= proved remarkably. Whether his memories of Kathleen Willey will prove to be of the same qual= ity as his memories of racist church burnings in Arkansas during his childhood (reminder: they didn't happen), remains to be seen. Besides, Clinton's convenient recollection of things that didn't happen, has never before be= en brought forward as a defense against allegations. That marks a substantia= l change of strategy. Either that, or the only aspect of Clinton's presidency that has ever man= aged to lodge itself in his memory is the times when he's been alone with wome= n other than his own wife. (Hmm, well, that actually isn't so far-fetched..= .) I think the corner we all hoped had been turned when the Lewinsky affair surfaced, has now been turned for real. The standard defenses that have w= orked so well for the Clintonista Front won't work in this instance. Long a pol= itical ally of Clinton, Willey has seen what has happened to Gennifer Flowers, P= aula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky, and realized that the Clintonista Code of Sil= ence can't protect her as well as the truth can. The president, alias Bill Z. Bubba, is in trouble and knows it. If Kathle= en Willey is talking, how long can it be before Slick Willie is walking? - -30- March 16, 1998 **Visit the AdvAM/AdvAK archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/advance.htm The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #86 ************************