From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #133 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Friday, May 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:37:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Clinton's global crime plan (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:58:19 -0500 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980514.btl.clinton.global..html =20 WorldNetDaily Thursday, May 14, 1998 Clinton's global crime plan=20 By Joseph Farah The Clinton administration this week announced a comprehensive plan to target the growing power of sophisticated international organized crime syndicates.=20 It's called the International Crime Control Strategy, which identifies the major global threats to the United States as drug trafficking, acquisition or sale of weapons of mass destruction by criminal, the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to rogue foreign states and trafficking in women and children.=20 Drug trafficking? Transfer of sensitive technology? Trafficking in women? These are certainly areas in which the Clinton administration has expertise. He has long associated with drug dealers, even pardoning one as governor, and his connections to activity at Mena Airport in Arkansas has long been a matter of suspicion. As president he was responsible for perhaps the single most serious transfer of sensitive technology since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, with his approval of the sale of missile guidance systems to China. And, as far as trafficking in women, does it count when it's for your own use?=20 Seriously, folks, if I didn't know better I would think this plan, announced at this moment, was a practical joke -- an idea worthy of "Saturday Night Live."=20 If the administration is serious about stamping out organized crime, it could begin by cleaning out its own house. Here's just a partial, quickie list of the felony convictions in and around Bill Clinton since he took office: Webster Hubbell, Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, David Hale, Robert W. Palmer, Chris Wade, Neal T. Ainley, Henry Espy, Michael Brown, Eugene Lum, Nora Lum and Johnny Chung.=20 Then there are those indicted or targeted for indictment: Ron Brown, Herby Branscum, Mike Espy, Henry Cisneros, Archie Schaefer, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia, Nolanda Hill, Bruce Babbitt, Ron Carey, Monica Lewinsky and Webster Hubbell (again).=20 Then come the executive privilege claims: Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary Clinton, Secret Service agents and James Hamilton.=20 Let's not forget about Clinton's criminal associates -- from Jorge Cabrera to Dan Lasater to Wang Jun.=20 And, perhaps, the biggest benchmark of criminal conspiracy -- the Fifth Amendment pleadings and refusal to answer under oath: Susan McDougal, Susan Thomases, Webster Hubbell (again), Maggie Williams, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Clinton, John Huang, Johnny Chung, David Wang, Keshi Zhan, Gin F.J. Chen, Siuw Moi Lian, Yi Chu, Mark Middleton, Seow Fong Ooi, Bin Ue Jeng, Hsiu Chu Lin, Larry Wong, Duangnet Kronenberg, Jen Chin Hsueh, Na-chi "Nancy" Lee, Chi Rung Wang, Hueutsan Huang, Jou Sheng, Yue Chu, Yogesh Ghandi, Judy Hsu, Man Ho, Steven Hwang, Jane Dewi Tahir, Manlin Foung, Gilbert Colon, Maria Mapili, Yumei Yang, Irene Wu, Jie Su Hsaio, Mike Lin, Hsiu Luan Tseng, Hsin Chen Shi, Zie Pan Huang, Mark Jiminez, Shu Jen Wu, Michael Brown, Woody Hwang, Charles Intriago, Simon Chen, Sioeng Fei Man, Jessica Elinitiarta, Kent La, Craig Livingstone.=20 Speaking of international criminal syndicates, there are the foreign witnesses refusing to answer: Ng Lap Seng, Stephan Riady, Roy Tirtadji, Ken Hsui, John Mucy, James Lin, Eugene Wu, Mochtar Riady, Stanley Ho, Suma Ching Hai, James Riady, Daniel Wu, Ambrose Hsuing, Lay Kweek Wie, Li Kwai Fai, Bruce Cheung.=20 And, of course, those avoiding testimony by fleeing the country: Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ming Chen, Antonio Pan, John H.K. Lee, Aug Setiawan, Ted Sioeng, Dewi Tirto, Subandi Tanuwidjaja, Sorya Wiriadinata, Felix Ma, Susanto Tanuwidjaja, Suryant Tanuwidjaja, Subandi Tanuwidjaja, Yanti Ardi, Nanny Nitiarta, Yopie Elnitiarta, Maureen Elinitiarta, Sandra Elinitiarta, Sundari Elnitiarta.=20 Of course, there are lots more name we could add -- the suicides, the murders, the accident victims, those who have been harassed and intimidated for daring to cross the administration. ... It all begins to look suspiciously like a pattern of racketeering, organized crime, a mob-style operation.=20 My first thought upon reading of Clinton's plan is that the initiative sounds more like a way to rub out the competition. It sounds like there's going to be a good, old-fashioned gang war.=20 If I were an international organized crime figure not paying sufficient tribute to Don Clinton, I'd be nervous. It looks like the Godfather is getting ready to make a move.=20 - - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ------- Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WrldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters.=20 =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 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:37:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: NYT: Chung says money for Democrats came from China's Peoples Liberation Army (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: rayheizer@value.net (Ray Heizer) Subject: CAS: AP: NYT: Democrat Fund-Raiser Said to Name China Tie [ From ACECWW ... said to be from the AP Wire ] The New York Times Friday, May 15, 1998 Democrat Fund-Raiser Said to Name China Tie This article is based on reporting by Jeff Gerth, David Johnston and Don Van Natta and was written by Jeff Gerth. WASHINGTON -- A Democratic fund-raiser has told Federal investigators he funneled tens of thousands of dollars from a Chinese military officer to the Democrats during President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, according to lawyers and officials with knowledge of the Justice Department's campaign finance inquiry. The fund-raiser, Johnny Chung, told investigators that a large part of the nearly $100,000 he gave to Democratic causes in the summer of 1996 -- including $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee -- came from China's People's Liberation Army through a Chinese lieutenant colonel and aerospace executive whose father was General Liu Huaqing, the officials and lawyers said. General Liu was then not only China's top military commander but also a member of the top leadership of the Communist Party. Chung said the aerospace executive, Liu Chao-ying, told him the source of the money. At one fund-raiser to which Chung gained admission for her, she was photographed with President Clinton. A special adviser to the White House counsel, Jim Kennedy, said today, "We had no knowledge about the source of Chung's money or the background of his guest. In hindsight it was clearly not appropriate for Chung to bring her to see the President." Chung's account, coupled with supporting documents such as bank records, is the first direct evidence obtained by the Justice Department that elements of the Chinese Government made illegal contributions to the Democratic Party. Under American law, foreign governments are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns. While the amount described is a tiny part of the $194 million that Democrats raised in 1996, investigators regard the identification of Liu as a breakthrough in their long search for confirmation of a "China Plan." The hunt was prompted by secret telephone intercepts suggesting that Beijing considered covertly influencing the American elections. Chung, a Southern California businessman, began cooperating with investigators after he pleaded guilty in March to campaign-related bank and tax fraud. He is the first defendant in the Justice Department inquiry to agree to cooperate. It is not clear whether other Chinese officials or executives were involved in the purported payments by Liu, or what her motivation or the Chinese military's might have been. At the time, President Clinton was making it easier for American civilian communication satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets, a key issue for the P.L.A. and for Liu's company, which sells missiles for the military and also has a troubled space subsidiary. The President's decision was valuable to Liu for enabling her company to do more business with American companies, but it had also been sought by American aerospace corporations, including Loral Space and Communications and the Hughes Electronics Corporation, a subsidiary of the General Motors Corporation, seeking to do more business in China. It is not known, however, whether anyone in the Democratic Party or the Clinton Administration had reason to suspect the source of the contributions from Chung. A lawyer for Chung, Brian A. Sun, declined to comment on his client's conversations with investigators, citing his client's sealed plea agreement with the Justice Department. "I'm shocked that sources at the Justice Department would attribute anything like that to my client." Chung has denied being an agent of the Chinese Government. "Nor did Chung ever try to lobby the American Government on any type of issue involving technology or anything else," Sun said. A National Security Council spokesman, Eric Rubin, said, "It is ludicrous to suggest there was any influence on the determination of U.S. policy on this matter." He said he did not know whether any executives from Liu's company expressed an interest in the issue. Liu did not return a message left with her office in Hong Kong today. Chung's revelations have opened an avenue of inquiry leading in a diplomatically sensitive direction: next month, Clinton goes to Beijing, where he hopes to announce increased space cooperation between China and the United States. A representative of the Chinese Government denied that Beijing was behind the purported contributions. "China has always abided by the laws and regulations in this country," said Yu Shu-ning, a press counselor for the Chinese embassy. "We have nothing to do whatsoever with political contributions in this country." Chung, an American citizen who was born in Taiwan, owned a floundering facsimile company in Torrance, Calif. He became involved with the Democratic Party in early 1995 through Asian-American contacts at the White House and was known for constantly trying to use his connections in Washington with Chinese Government officials and executives. Despite being labeled a "hustler" by one Presidential aide in 1995, Chung managed to visit the White House at least 49 times. He and his company contributed $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee -- most of it before he met Liu. The full amount was later returned after questions were raised about Democratic fund-raising. A Democratic National Committee spokesman, Richard W. Hess, said, "We did not know and had no way of knowing the source of his funds." Chung met Liu in June 1996 in Hong Kong. She was not only a lieutenant colonel in the military, but a senior manager and vice president in charge of international trading for China Aerospace International Holdings Ltd., according to the company's 1996 annual report. The company is the Hong Kong arm of China Aerospace Corporation, a state-owned jewel in China's military industrial complex with interests in satellite technology, missile sales and rocket launches. Liu's father, General Liu, was China's senior military officer, and as vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission was in charge of China's drive to modernize the People's Liberation Army by selling weapons to other countries and using the hard currency to acquire Western technology. In that role, he oversaw his country's missile deals. In addition to his military role, General Liu was a member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Communist Party, the very top circle of political leadership in China. He retired from his official positions last fall at the time of the Party's 15th Congress. China Aerospace sells satellites, launches them and owns a large chunk of a Hong Kong satellite operator, but the financial viability of many of these ventures depends on American satellites. In 1996 President Clinton made it easier for American satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets. The decision was announced in March but due to delays did not take effect until election day. As Liu began her relationship with Chung, her company and her father were trying to fix China's troubled rocket program. That spring, China Aerospace had brought in outside experts, including officials from Hughes and Loral to help analyze why a launch the previous February had failed. The Pentagon later concluded that the outside review harmed American national security by advancing China's rocket and missile capabilities. Both companies denied wrongdoing. In 1991 and 1993 the United States barred all American companies from doing business with two China Aerospace units who had made illegal missile sales to Pakistan. In each instance, Liu was assistant to the president of the sanctioned company. Writing about who in China may have benefited from the 1991 missile deal, former Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d, in his memoirs, said, "In all probability, several senior government and party officials or their families stood to gain from the performance of those contracts." The sons and daughters of China's elite -- sometimes referred to as "princelings" -- have developed lucrative businesses based on their family connections. The missile deals were part of General Liu's strategy of selling Chinese weapons to other countries to raise money to acquire Western technology. "Liu was a proponent of P.L.A. modernization who was very much interested in obtaining Western technology," said retired Rear Adm. Eric A. McVadon, the American defense attache in Beijing in the early 1990's. He said Liu constantly rebuffed American concerns about China's weaponry sales. Those concerns were front and center in 1996, when General Liu was still in charge of the P.L.A. They included China's sale of missiles to Iran and of nuclear equipment to Pakistan, as well as its own bellicose military maneuvers near Taiwan. Liu, McVadon recalled, was a "gladhander" who "brokered deals." In 1990 she was granted a visa to visit the United States as a representative of a China Aerospace subsidiary. At the first meeting between Chung and Liu in June 1996, Chung is said to have told investigators, Liu told him she was interested in again visiting the United States. Soon learning that Chung could arrange meetings with the President, she expressed an interest in meeting Clinton. Chung helped Liu obtain a visa on July 11, 1996, according to a law enforcement official. Five days later, he wrote the Democratic National Committee that he wanted to bring Liu and a Chinese medical executive to a July 22 fund-raising dinner to be held at the Brentwood, Calif., home of the financier Eli Broad. Both of his guests' names were placed on the guest list after Chung wrote a check for $45,000 to the Democratic National Committee on July 19. A week later, Chung set up a California corporation for Liu and himself, records show. Liu arrived in Los Angeles on July 21, and the next day Chung accompanied her to two fund-raising events attended by Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. The first was an early evening $1,000-per-plate gala at the Beverly Hilton. Later that night, Chung and Liu attended a $25,000-per-couple dinner at Broad's home that raised more than $1.5 million for the Democrats. The President was photographed with Liu, a routine courtesy at such events. Sun, Chung's lawyer, said, "I don't think she was any different from any of his business contacts -- they thought Johnny was influential and someone they would like to know as they furthered their business dealings in the United States." The previous year, photos from another Chung visit with Clinton had caused a problem. The President had expressed concerns about some of Chung's Chinese business clients -- unrelated to Liu -- whom the fund-raiser brought to a March 1995 radio address by Clinton. Clinton's director of Oval Office operations, Nancy Hernreich, in testimony taken by Senate investigators, said Clinton told her later the visit shouldn't have happened. She took that to mean that Clinton thought Chung's clients were "inappropriate foreign people." Friday, May 15, 1998 Copyright 1998 The New York Times ========================================================================== 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: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:57:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: forwarded essay on Ruby Ridge (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:14:42 -0500 From: John Wallace Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: "'texas-gun-owners@mailing-list.net'" Subject: forwarded essay on Ruby Ridge Posted to texas-gun-owners by John Wallace - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I saw this on another list, and thought it was worth forwarding. I don't know the author personally, but I told him he should try to get this published in the mainstream press somewhere >>>>>>> "Just yesterday morning they let me know you were gone Suzanne, the plans they made put an end to you. Woke up this mornin' and I wrote down the song. Just can't remember who to send it to. O, I've seen fire and I've see rain. Seen sunny days, I thought would never end. Seen lonely times when I could not find a friend But I always thought that I'd see you again." from "Fire and Rain" by James Taylor It's not a girl, but the America of my youth. It's not a song, but simply scattered thoughts. Still, the feeling is the same emptiness, and I am at a loss as to where they might best be directed. Vicki Weaver died in the doorway of an Idaho cabin. Lon Horiuchi, an FBI HRT team member, launched the bullet that killed her. Horiuchi's supervisors issued orders that can be called suspicious, at best. No one disputes these facts. The people of the United States understand and accept the law enforcement is a potentially dangerous occupation. They understand that there are a lot of "crazies" out there who may or may not directly threaten the public and their law enforcement agents. People understand that lethal force is sometimes necessary in defense of self or another life. People also understand that when lethal force is used, there is the potential for accidental injury or death. Law enforcement officers (along with others) have to make split second decisions in pressure packet moments. When they do everything right, its "just part of the job." When mistakes are made, by agents or their supervisors, then there is a lot of second guessing. Sometimes such "mistakes" are mere accidents for which there is no criminal liability. Sometimes the "mistakes" are negligent and subject to penalties of law. When a questionable incident occurs, we have systems in place to deal with them. In the America of my youth, I was told that each person was equal before the law-- that each person-- rich, poor, or in between; black, white, brown, yellow or red; liberal or conservative; male or female-- was equally responsible for their actions. The key to this equality was a trial by a jury of one's peers. They would examine the facts, if not the law, and determine whether or not actions were reasonable, or at least lawful or unlawful, according to the standards of our society. It seems that I was misinformed. When the gunsmoke and heat of the moment cleared on Ruby Ridge, the judicial system went into operation. Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were tried for murder and a host of lesser charges. A jury of their peers judged the facts of several years of law enforcement strategy, tactics and implementation, along with Weaver and Harris response. After consideration of all that had been done, Weaver and Harris were acquitted of all charges, save one count of failing to respond to a summons. Law enforcement was censured by the judge for abusing the system, including falsifying and withholding evidence. The results of the trial caused a number of people to suspect that something was wrong. The issue came before Congress who held televised hearings on "the incident at Ruby Ridge." They came to the conclusion that something was terribly wrong. FBI and ATF officials promised reform. The Department of Justice settled a civil suit with the Weavers, paying $3.1 million dollars, without admitting fault. So far, so good. But Vicki Weaver is still dead. Everyone seems to affirm that her death was a wrongful act. Wrongful acts causing death are illegalities subject to criminal, not civil, penalties. What crime was committed-- murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide-- was a matter for the technicalites of the law. Whether the actions were justified were issues to be determined by the facts of the case-- the job of the jury. Whether Lon Horiuchi was the guilty party or whether he acted reasonably in following what Congress called "unlawful rules of engagement" was an issue to be determined-- by a jury. The calendar pages turned. The Department of Justice refused to prosecute. Finally, the case was settled at the Federal level with no criminal action perceived or prosecuted. The People of the State of Idaho then took up the challenge. A local prosecutor submitted facts to a Grand Jury. They found cause to indict. The matter would be brought to trial. The facts were simple as stated above. Vicki Weaver was dead. Lon Horiuchi directly caused the death. It happened in Idaho. No person is above the law. And then we learn that we are wrong. Some people are. Federal agents "in the performance of their duties" are not subject to state laws. Such is an act of Congress. There was a time when "federal agents" had no duty within the boundaries of a state, except to deliver the mail! Now we find an entire class of people not subject to state action-- people exempted from the law. Part of this makes sense. Consider laws regulating the carrying of a concealed weapon. There are a patchwork of such laws, differing in every state. If FBI agents are required by their job descriptions to carry weapons, it would make no sense for them to be subject to arrest in states which did not allow weapons to be carried. (Whether such laws should be on the books is another discussion.) The intent of Congress' exemption from state law may be reasonable in some cases. But a blanket exemption from all criminal law is another matter all together. As a local police officer said, "Every federal agent thinks he's "f**king James Bond, with a license to kill. If they do, there's not a d**ned thing we can do about it. It's been that way for years." The police know this, but its news to me, and I suspect, to most of the public." Apparently the court actions in the Ruby Ridge case are exceptional only in the fact that the State of Idaho tried to take action in this wrongful death. A federal judge moved the action from state court to a federal court where the charges were dropped. Whether Horiuchi got off with murder (or manslaughter or negligent homicide) will never be determined. He may have committed no crime in the eyes of the jury, but we will never know. Horiuchi will live under a cloud of thwarted process for the rest of his life, and the citizens of this nation will be left living with the knowledge that there is no recourse for wrongs done to them by federal agents unless the federal government decides to punish its own. Somehow the punishment often meted out in "days off," letters of censure, demotions, transfers and forced retirements fall far short of "equality under the law." If anyone else was found guilty of taking a life, the penalties would be much more severe. I am an amateur student of history. I cannot help but recall the "long train of abuses" listed in the Declaration of Independence. Some of them are recalled to mind as yesterday's decision was announced: "He (King George) has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing to assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. For protecting them by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states. For depriving us, in many cases of the benefit of trial by jury. For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering, fundamentally, the forms of our governments." King George acted not alone. Generally, Parliment and the king's judges acted with him in unison. They acted under the color of English law. It all looked official, but the colonist could look at the results. They didn't like what they saw. It didn't pass the "smell test," in spite of what they were told. The colonist were fed the line that they were "free Englishmen," but as they looked at their lives, they could see the limits on their freedom. They were free to do the will of the King. No regime enforces penalties for absolute obedience to the whims and wishes of the powers that be. What we are discovering is that the States, which created the Federal government, have lost all illusions of sovereignty. We live by the good will of the Federal government. All power is now invested in the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court. States are legally powerless, and citizens have no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apart from the whim and will of Federal officials. The people and the States who were to be a check against federal abuse are being systematically stripped of their power to effectively resist anything. The reality is our not so secret agents have a license to kill. And there is nothing we can do about it short of revolt. That revolt may come at the polls. It may not come at all. For the Founders of this nation, that day came, but we are different people and this is a different time. We may be willing to accept such abuse in stride, check the stock market figures, weigh the benefits of life in this society against the uncertainties of change, and continue with the lives we live, but we will never be able to think of ourselves as free. Perhaps we never were. Maybe, the America of my youth never really was. Certainly, it is now gone, and it never had a chance to say goodbye. "Just yesterday morning, they let me know you were gone. America, the plans they made put and end to you. Woke up this morning and I wrote down these thoughts. Just can't remember who to send them to O, I've seen fire and I've seen rain Seen sunny days I thought would never end Seen lonely times when I could not find a friend But I always thought I'd see you again" Walter Lee - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 May 98 13:32:23 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Horiuchi poll on the net (fwd) On May 15, Rich Zellich wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.newsindex.com has a poll running: Do you agree with the decision to dismiss the charges against...[Horiuchi]? Current tally is 6.81% Yes 93.19% No Good numbers! - -Rich [if you see this in time to vote, the poll dialogue is at the very bottom of the left-hand navigation frame] [------------------------- 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: Fri, 15 May 98 13:33:57 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Good old Janet Part II (fwd) On May 15, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I read the following statement and then re-read the executive order lists and shudder. Josh >> Subject: Cults and Government >> >> Just ran across this quote from AG Janet Reno. From a person of such high >> power, these are scary words. --------- >> >> "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second >> Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high >> level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their >> children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the >> Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may<<< >> qualify [a person as a cultist] but certainly more than one [of these]<<< >> would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being >> in a risk situation that qualified for government interference." >> >> -Attorney General Janet Reno, Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994 > > "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes, and the other is the Bill of Rights." Major General Smedley Butler USMC 1930 winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor [------------------------- 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: Fri, 15 May 1998 21:08:11 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fw: Framing The Terms >Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:37:29 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Fw: Framing The Terms=20 >To: misc-activism-militia@moderators.uu.net >X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] > > > >------------------------ > From: jrwent@earthlink.net > Subject: Framing The Terms=20 > Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 20:17:43 -0700=20 > > > >Framing The Terms > > >Like many of you, I get vexed about how we -- those who support our >Nation=B9s Constitution, and the ideas upon which it was founded -- >constantly appear to be the recipients of slanderous remarks from elitists >who believe they have attained Nirvana and further believe that we are >imbeciles for not following their leadership. Our ideas are continually >maligned by the innuendo and direct aspersions of these people. They are >very effective at using catchy labels to frame our position while we have >simply tried to counter their wild, irresponsible accusations with rational >arguments leading to well-deliberated conclusions. > >In spite of our attempts to provide rationality to the issues we many times >appear to be losing the battle for the hearts and minds of middle America >because our opponents -- with media support -- persist in using sound bites >that provoke a visceral effect against our cause. Our opponents don=B9t= talk >in terms of the academia or the judicatory when they malign us to the >public, but we sometimes respond in that manner in our own defense, and >when we do we are not understood by the vast majority of people in this >nation who have a problem reading the Sunday comics. We find ourselves >attempting to defend our position in an argument where the terms and >definitions have been outlined by our opponents in feeling, not logic. >Therefore a difficult task is made even more arduous because we allow >ourselves to be placed in a position of using terms whose definition has >been delineated by our adversary. We end up defending our doctrine against >the terms defined by our antagonists rather than conveying our beliefs on >the argument itself. This happens over and over again and yet we continue >to allow ourselves to be brought into discussions wherein the language used >is terms defined by the opposition. The following are some of the terms to >which I refer: > >=B3Saturday Night Special=B2 >=B3Cop Killer Bullets=B2 >=B3Assault Weapons=B2 >=B3Weapons Of Mass Destruction=B2 >=B3Designed Only For Killing People=B2 >=B3Sniper Rifle=B2 >=B3High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Systems=B2 >=B3Hair Trigger=B2 >=B3Easily Accessible Firearms=B2 >=B3Unregistered Firearm=B2 >=B3Dum Dum Bullets=B2 >=B3No Sporting Purpose=B2 >+ a bunch more that slip my mind at this point. > >As you read down that list it is very likely that each of those terms >brought some image to your mind or evoked some gut reaction in you at some >level. Why?? Why the reaction?? Some of those terms bring forth images >that define a natural reaction against the item; like =B3Cop Killer= Bullets=B2. >Other terms that we may have used in everyday language have been so skewed >in their meaning over the years by our opponents that they now have a >different meaning than they originally had, like =B3Saturday Night= Special=B2, >which I always thought was a pretty good weekend price on beer and pizza. > >The point is that we, as a group who support the Constitution and firearms >ownership as defined by our Founders, must start defining the terms of the >debate from our perspective. We must take the battle to our adversaries >using terms that we define; terms that put them on the defensive. We must >start paying attention to how we phrase things, and especially make efforts >to define terms that bring about the desired visceral effect in people who >are open to impression on these issues and get most of their news in >broadcast media sound bites. > >Not only must we define these terms, we also must come up with some >mechanism to get these terms into the national mainstream. This is where >our opponents do so well. They pick up on these little catch phrases and >pass them around among themselves, and then start getting them into media >sound bites, and before you know it everyone is using their terms - >including us !! > >This situation must be reversed. We must all strive, by whatever means we >have available, to put those who would deprive us of our liberties into a >defensive posture that requires them to explain their position with regard >to our ideas and terms. Yes, we must continue to offer cogent arguments >that support our position. We have, thank goodness, more and more very >capable people who continue to join our camp on these issues. We must >always continue to bring good, dedicated people into this conflict on our >side. We must, however, strive to get all of those who support us to not >only continue in the vein they are currently in but also to start thinking >about the terms they use in framing their arguments. If the terms we use >can be sharpened to paint a mental picture that elicits a positive >portrayal of our position, or a negative portrayal of our opponent=B9s >position, then we can start to present arguments that not only hold up in >courts of law, but also the court of public opinion. I, for one, think it >is worth a try. > >We can make it work by passing around ideas. There are a lot of us who are >very sharp people who will, hopefully, start using our individual and >collective wits to outwit the opposition on a very basic and effective >level. But we need some mechanism to get this into the legal, legislative, >and medical communities, the news media, and to pass this information >around the Nation quickly so the terms that are introduced can get wide >spread dissemination. The idea is to pass ideas, and not necessarily for >anyone in particular to say that this idea is good and that one is bad. >Perhaps a consensus on some terms can be reached at some level. I don=B9t >know. This is just an idea I have. I hope someone out there in cyberspace >agrees that it is a good one and will pick up the ball and run with it. >Perhaps someone out there is willing to be the repository, collection, and >dissemination point for this effort. Organizations that are experienced in >the battle for our rights have the know-how and the wherewithal to put this >together on a national level and make it work. There is nothing wrong with >the major organizations working to accomplish their own objectives, BUT... >on this one point of "Framing The Terms" all of the major, and minor, >associates on our side of this debate must achieve a unified front if this >effort is to have any effect what-so-ever. The NRA, GOA, LEAA, LSAS, JPFO, >etc..etc..etc. must each make a positive step in this effort and start >talking with each other regarding the terminology we use. We also need >mechanisms to get it to those who can get it into sound bites. I=B9ll be >happy to act as the initial point of contact to get it started but someone >else is needed to sustain it. > >I can offer a some suggestions for terms to consider, unfortunately I don= =B9t >know who first coined many of these. If some of these ideas sound >sophomoric to you then get off your duff and come up with some of your own. > >1. Always refer to a gun control advocate as a =B3Victim Disarmament >Extremist=B2 or =B3Predator Advocate=B2 > >2. We should refer to ourselves as being =B3ProChoice AND ProLife=B2 on= the >firearms issue. Or take the sting out of it and call yourself a: =B3Self >Defense Advocate=B2 > >3. Gun control of ANY nature should be viewed as a =B3CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE= =B2 in >addition to any other manner in which it is addressed. > >4. Firearms registration or firearms owner registration touted by the >=B3freedom hating left=B2 should be viewed as =B3Pre-Confiscation= Initiatives=B2 > >5. Inexpensive handguns (Saturday Night Specials) are =B3Economically= Viable >Protection=B2 or simply =B3Affordable Protection=B2. Attempts to outlaw >inexpensive firearms for defensive use should be viewed as an effort to >deprive the less fortunate or economically challenged of their CIVIL RIGHTS >because it deprives these people of the most effective means to defend >themselves and their families against predators of all kinds. > >6. Firearms training is =B3Life Assurance Training=B2 or maybe =B3Family= Self >Defense Training=B2 > >7. Concealed carry license can be =B3Predator Neutralization License=B2 or >=B3Family Life Assurance License=B2 or "Victim Protection Measures" or= "Threat >Reduction Measures. While we're at it... why do we as a people even >tolerate our government licensing us to carry the tool that is most >effective in protecting the well-being of ourselves and our families. We >should have a Vermont-style right to carry and protect ourselves. Isn't >that, in fact, what our Founders intended??? Why do we keep voting in >representatives who support "Innocent Victim Disarmament". > >8. Expand upon the GOA premise that =B3Guns Save Lives=B2. They do... We >know it... Let=B9s talk about it - IN PUBLIC!! Every pro-gun organization >in existence should be on this bandwagon!!! GUNS SAVE LIVES !!! > >9. Always refer to the bad guys as =B3Predators=B2 along with other >appropriate pejorative terms like =B3thieves=B2, =B3rapists=B2, etc. > >10. Firearms owner lists in government possession are: =8CRound Up Lists= =B2 or >"Pre-Holocaust Victim Identification Lists". > >11. Any government-required fee for firearms licenses, Brady-type checks, >etc. should be referred to as a =B3Another Gun Tax=B2, =B3Civil Rights >Violations=B2, =B3Firearms Infringement=B2 > >12. Charlton Heston (of =B3Moses=B2 & >=B3people-shouldn=B9t-be-able-to-own-AK-47-type-weapons=B2 fame) FINALLY= got it >right recently when he referred to Barbara Streisand as the =B3Hanoi Jane= =B2 of >the anti-gun movement. > >13. Eddy Eagle should become a National Hero. Other similar symbols for >firearms safety or freedoms should be developed and/or expanded upon. JPFO >has a very good series that should be brought into the mainstream. This >information is needed now in our "Youth Propaganda Camps", commonly called >public schools. Every pre-puberty kid in the Nation should know who these >symbols are and the positive side of what they represent. Our kids are >this Nation=B9s future and we continue to allow the fanatical left, >victim-disarmament teacher's unions to indoctrinate our children into >believing that guns are bad and so are the people who own them. > >14. Those in the opposition should be referred to as screwballs, >crackpots, extremists, etc. Although I don=B9t normally agree with calling >anyone names but it may get mainstream people thinking that we do have a >valid point. I, for one, certainly am of the opinion that many of the >Hollywood elite, who donate millions to efforts that would negate our Bill >of Rights, can and should be referred to as =B3crackpot elitist= extremists=B2. > >15. Let=B9s face it... Jim Brady getting shot was a tragedy. An even= larger >tragedy is that Sara Brady has become quite wealthy from cynical >exploitation of his misfortune. Additionally, her efforts have helped >build an empire on the bodies of those innocent victims who were denied >access to defensive firearms because of Brady checks, mandatory waiting >periods, and the defeat of concealed carry legislation that she has been >instrumental in effecting. As a community dedicated to restoring and >maintaining our liberties how can we give Sara Brady a free pass to >continue her =B3Victim Disarmament=B2 work without calling her to task for= it >at every opportunity??? She is getting rich making speeches to outlaw our >freedoms and yet we seldom see anything in print anywhere that says this is >happening. Why? (QUOTABLE QUOTES: "Our task of creating a socialist >America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally >disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard >Metzanbaum, "The National Educator," January 1994, Page 3. (unverified >information provided to me, recently)" > >16. Gun control legislation is literally: =B3Job Safety For Criminals=B2= or >=B3The Safe Streets For Criminals Act/Bill/Law/Regulation=B2 > >We ALL need to get together on this effort. I'm sure that some of the >descriptive phrases we glean from this will be worth the effort, both to >our cause and to our funny-bone. > >Maybe this epistle will get the ball rolling. Hopefully this will spark >some interest in getting the scoreboard numbers up in our favor by >establishing a system that offers coordination of =B3reasonable terms=B2= that >can be used within this debate. If everyone takes a few minutes to think >about this I=B9m sure we=B9ll have some terms to use that will gain the >initiative and turn the tide. Give this a shot... what have you got to >lose?? There is a whole lot to gain. Let me know. And... will someone >please step forward and volunteer to be a coordination point for this >effort should it get off the ground. Please feel free to pass this along >to anyone who is interested in regaining our freedoms and rights in a >lawful, peaceful manner. > >Peace, > >Skip Wayland > > > > > >"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a >reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the >very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for >independence." > >Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948); American historian and educator > > ------------ PEACE ------------- > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * * > * SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM * > * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > >---------------End of Original Message----------------- > >=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 >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/15/98 Time: 17:37:29 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org >=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 > > > - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #133 *************************