From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #145 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, June 1 1998 Volume 02 : Number 145 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 18:55:53 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: correction from VIN FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA PLEASE FIX IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Stop schoolyard shootings: hand out more guns EDITORS: In the 58th paragraph of this story, please change spelling of "sucks" to "ducks." Sentence should read: Sitting ducks like Colin Ferguson's victims on the Long Island Railroad, that is -- all forbidden by New York law to carry weapons for their own self-defense. Thank You, Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, buth which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Democratic Farm Labor, Minnesota - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 May 98 00:16:49 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #87 (fwd) On May 31, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia May 31, 1998 #87 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at:=20 http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- UNCONSTITUTIONAL DO-GOODER LAWS The legal barracudas are swarming again. =20 They smell dollars. And it looks as though these=20 manipulators of the law have found yet another quasi-legal=20 trick to rip off hundreds of billions of dollars from an=20 unsuspecting American public. With tobacco, as everyone knows by now, their=20 method of providing legal cover was to "protect our health." =20 In so doing, a couple hundred shysters sued tobacco=20 companies in the name of addicted smokers, government=20 medical plans, and whatever. Then the ever-oppressive=20 Congressional lawmakers got involved and compounded the=20 issue under the dubious mantra of "stopping children from=20 smoking." In truth, some in Congress noticed that private=20 attorneys, and some State governments, were about to=20 realize a windfall of billions of dollars. Congress=20 wanted in on that, and so raised the cost to the American=20 public to hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and=20 other hidden costs. Forgotten in the confusion of things is the=20 fact that the original private attorneys starting this=20 foolishness will all become multimillionaires from this=20 one case. And we, of course, will ultimately be the ones=20 to pay them. We warned months ago that if this case was=20 allowed to proceed, many thousands of lawyers would be=20 shopping around for another such fat cow to slaughter for=20 a great payday. And, sure enough, here it comes. Last week we read: 'A coalition of health=20 organizations and medical experts has identified the fast=20 food industry as being vulnerable to the same regulations=20 which threaten to snuff out cigarette producers.' No=20 doubt, we thought, and so started doing some snooping=20 around. Found in one place: "A recent report in the=20 journal of the influential American National Cancer=20 Institute (Who's that?) pointed out that the risks of=20 contracting diseases through eating too much fast food=20 were almost the same as those caused by smoking." Found in another place were proposals by a=20 group of do-gooders for curbs on junk food advertising=20 aimed at children. And, of course, they want compulsory=20 physical education and nutrition classes in schools, too. =20 So, to pay for that they demand a "junk food tax" on=20 unhealthy meals. Another buttensky group, the American Health=20 Foundation, reports: "According to Advertising Age, the=20 1996 advertising budget for Coca-Cola Classic was $131=20 million, for McDonald's, it was $599 million. The=20 National Cancer Institute's budget for the five-a-day=20 promotion of fruit and vegetable consumption was under=20 $1 million." "Not fair!" say the small chorus of do-gooders=20 wishing more control over the lives of others. So they=20 intend to "fix" that. Which, of course, will involve=20 lawyers, courts, massive lawsuits, and 40% commissions=20 for all of the law firms participating. "Ideas that were once considered ridiculous=20 are now being taken seriously," warned Jacob Sullum, a=20 Libertarian writer on smoking issues. "Just look at how=20 you could easily say that the fast food chains explicitly=20 target children as young as five, and you can see how=20 things might go. We know, for example, from the=20 [McDonald] McLean that they can remove fat from these=20 products. So the next step will be to ask, why don't they=20 do so?" The groups are assembling their "scientific"=20 facts, too. Among these "facts" is a 600 page report=20 titled "Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A=20 Global Perspective," presented as a major new=20 international report on cancer prevention. The report examines "the relationship between=20 dietary factors and 18 specific cancers, provides new=20 dietary guidelines for cancer prevention and offers public=20 policy recommendations to help make cancer prevention an=20 achievable goal." The report can be found at: =20 http://www.aicr.org/report2.htm So here we go folks. The do-gooders will=20 soon be urging Washington to curb the unhealthy effects of=20 eating too many Big Macs and Quarter Pounders, and=20 certainly they'll be going after those large servings of=20 onion rings and French fries too. They will be requesting=20 legislation to clamp down on companies like McDonald's,=20 Wendy's and Burger King in the very same way they did Joe=20 Camel and the Marlboro Man. Anyone with deep pockets is fair prey for=20 these social scavengers with law degrees. And the budgets=20 of the fast food industry are very large. Janet Colwell, a columnist for the San=20 Francisco Business Times, says that "if a high- cholesterol, fat-laden diet with no redeeming nutritional=20 value is an express ticket to the grave, McDonald's may=20 one day find itself explaining its marketing strategy to=20 the courts and an increasingly hostile public. We may one=20 day find burger-eaters alongside smokers huddled=20 pathetically in alleyways, victims of an anti-cholesterol=20 establishment." When the federal government wanted to outlaw=20 alcoholic beverages, it found there was no authority=20 within the bounds of the Constitution to do so. =20 Therefore, Congress proposed a Constitutional Amendment. =20 Today, we see an assault on tobacco products, another=20 legal product. Again, there is no authority within the=20 Constitution allowing the federal government to even speak=20 on the subject. But yet they proceed. And we allow that. Tomorrow, they will tell us how fast we can=20 drive, what type of food we can eat, how much water we=20 can use in the toilet, how we may use our land, and where=20 we can drink a beer. Whoops, I forgot. They already unconstitutionally=20 created authority to do all that. Tomorrow they crack=20 down on Whoppers and Big Macs. Then comes sugar. How long will it be till they get to the stuff you like? ROLLING THUNDER -- AGAIN They came to make a statement, and that they=20 certainly did. Loud and clear. And at three-quarters of=20 a million strong, they were heard. Believe me, they were=20 heard! Over the Memorial Day weekend, three quarters=20 of a million people invaded the District of Columbia. =20 There were so many people there that they disrupted=20 traffic for three days. There were so many people there=20 that their parade took about four hours to pass. The=20 national news, however, did not cover it. These were=20 American Patriots. And unfortunately, for the liberal=20 national news, patriotism is no longer politically correct=20 in these United Sates. The media people heard it, though. They had=20 to hear it. This was ROLLING THUNDER! The name Rolling Thunder arose, as we ground- pounders know, from B52 bombers carpet bombing vast=20 stretches of jungle during the Vietnam war. Awesome,=20 that. Today, the term pertains to motorcycles -- as in big=20 Harley Davidsons. And in this case, many thousands of big=20 Harley Davidsons, along with a few other brands. Yes, National Chairman Artie "The Dictator"=20 Muller pulled it off again. This was possibly the biggest=20 and best Rolling Thunder yet. Check it out at: =20 http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5975/rt11.htm Click=20 around and look for pictures. They're there someplace,=20 and well worth searching for. The organizers say: "Rolling Thunder is about=20 Pride. It is about the pride we have as Americans. The=20 pride we have in the men and women of the Armed Services=20 that provide the blanket of freedom and security we so=20 often take for granted. "Rolling Thunder is about bikers taking a=20 message to Washington, DC. They ride to honor the fallen,=20 to thank those that returned and to demand an accounting=20 for those still missing." "This gathering of real Americans is designed=20 to send a message to Washington that those that were=20 willing to die for their country will never be forgotten=20 or forsaken. We are only getting stronger!" Artie Muller=20 explained. American Patriots of the highest order, one=20 and all, we add. And I also add: Rolling Thunder is a message=20 about liberty and freedom, from those who fought for it=20 once and will do so again if it becomes necessary. The=20 pride and determination of these veterans and their=20 friends never ceases to bring tears to the eyes and a=20 sinking feeling in the heart of those of us not fortunate=20 enough to attend. In fact, it's time I force these old bones to=20 make that pilgrimage one more time. It's been a few years. =20 Perhaps next year we should all attend. Perhaps we can=20 show Artie that there are still well over a million=20 patriotic American citizens out here who really do care. =20 Maybe we could show ourselves too, and that belligerent=20 leviathan we call government. Next Memorial Day. At the Pentagon's parking=20 lot. Early. Bring good earplugs. And trust me folks: =20 You will never -- EVER -- forget Rolling Thunder! Such=20 a demonstration can only happen in the United States. NEGLIGENCE AND JUNK SCIENCE AT EPA There's an old joke among practicing scientists: =20 Those who can't do teach. Perhaps it's time we added=20 something that is not a joke to that old saying: Those=20 who cannot do, and cannot get a job teaching, work for=20 government. A report by Matthew L. Wald in last Friday's=20 New York Times is a case in point. If we wish to be kind,=20 we can file this information under unintended consequences. =20 Actually though, it more properly belongs in the sloppy=20 science file. That is, the government's so called=20 "scientists" did not do their research properly before=20 proposing strict new regulations. As Wald reported: "The catalytic converter,=20 an invention that has sharply reduced smog from cars, has=20 now become a significant and growing cause of global=20 warming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency." Catalytic converters, it turns out, rearrange=20 the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide,=20 which most of us know as laughing gas. And as it happens,=20 nitrous oxide is reported to be a potent greenhouse gas. =20 The EPA "experts" assert that carbon dioxide is the most=20 common greenhouse gas warming the atmosphere. Nitrous=20 oxide, the same experts say, is more than 300 times more=20 potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Recently, the EPA estimated that nitrous oxide=20 comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global=20 warming. The catalytic converters on cars and trucks=20 produce nearly half of that nitrous oxide. And, according=20 to EPA, the nitrous oxide emissions are increasing rapidly. As the New York Times reported, Wylie J.=20 Barbour, an EPA official who worked on the recently=20 published report, said that the problem created by the=20 converter is classic. "You've got people trying to solve=20 one problem, and as is not uncommon, they've created=20 another." Sure. That usually happens when sloppy=20 science is the rule and proper research discouraged. =20 Perhaps there's a reason the "scientific method" is=20 neither easy nor fast? Christopher S. Weaver, an=20 engineering consultant who wrote a study on the subject=20 for EPA, said, "We haven't cared enough to establish=20 standards." Right. Neither has EPA cared enough to do=20 the proper research. Finally, EPA may be properly exposed for=20 using junk science to back up obnoxious regulations. Last=20 week, Congressmen David McIntosh (R-IN) and Richard Pombo=20 (R-CA), the National Wilderness Institute (NWI), career=20 EPA scientist David Lewis, and the Landmark Legal=20 Foundation charged that EPA under Administrator Carol=20 Browner: grossly misuses science for political ends;=20 intimidates and harasses employees who question agency=20 policies; and commits or condones numerous unethical and=20 possibly even illegal activities. In a press release dated May 12, the Landmark=20 Legal Foundation lays out the problem: "Landmark Legal Foundation and the National=20 Wilderness Institute (NWI) today are calling on Attorney=20 General Janet Reno to investigate widespread abuses at the=20 Environmental Protection Agency. The demand follows the=20 release today of an NWI-sponsored investigative report of=20 EPA misconduct ranging from violating agency ethics rules=20 and federal whistle-blower laws, to falsifying documents=20 in federal judicial proceedings. "In his letter to Attorney General Reno, Landmark=20 President Mark R. Levin pointed out possible violations of=20 the Hatch Act and the Congressional Review Act. Moreover,=20 the NWI report, 'The People v. Carol Browner: EPA on=20 Trial' details allegations of possible federal crimes by=20 EPA officials including perjury, fraud and false=20 statements, coercion of political activity by agency=20 employees, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. "The wide-ranging and pervasive misconduct=20 revealed in the NWI report cry out for an immediate and=20 full investigation of the EPA administrator and her=20 department by Public Integrity Section of the Justice=20 Department's criminal division. Moreover, the conduct of=20 Justice Department lawyers working with the EPA raises=20 serious questions that must be reviewed by the=20 Department's Office of Professional Responsibility." Dr. Bonner Cohen, Editor of EPA Watch and=20 the report's author noted that, "In my research I was=20 struck by one recurring theme: none of this misconduct is=20 even remotely related to protecting our environment." NWI Director Rob Gordon noted that "EPA=20 under Vice President Al Gore's prot=E9g=E9, Carol Browner,=20 has become a rogue agency driven by self-interest, not by=20 a concern for science, law, people's welfare or protection=20 of the environment." Among the charges made in the report are=20 the EPA and Army Corps of Engineer practice of abusing=20 the rights of citizens by violating the Congressional=20 Review Act and establishing unwritten and unpublicized=20 regulations. In other words, the practice of enforcing=20 secret regulations that property owners have no chance of=20 complying with because the regulations were not published. Actually, many of us believe that both EPA=20 and the Army Corps of Engineers make up the supposed=20 regulations as they go along, on a case by case basis. =20 Regardless, the practice is both unconstitutional and=20 tyrannical, and those involved should be prosecuted to the=20 fullest extent of the law. The full National Wilderness Institute report by=20 Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D. can be found on the NWI web page at: http://www.nwi.org/Special%20Studies/EPAReport/EPAstudy.html BURNING MEXICO They plan to demand that citizens curtail=20 driving by 50% to cut air pollution. Not here -- yet --=20 in Mexico. It appears that the centuries-old slash & burn=20 practice Mexican farmers use to clear farmland got a bit=20 out of hand this year. The "burn" part, that is. Now,=20 along with all the illegal drugs, Mexico is sending us=20 smoke. Over 1,000,000 acres are burning in Mexico. =20 The resulting smoke -- read air pollution -- is all the=20 way up to the central United States. There are out of=20 control fires over most of Mexico, a Mexican government=20 representative reported last Wednesday. And, of course,=20 he was worried about endangered species. The fires affect=20 about 1,500 endangered plants, the Mexican official said. =20 Migratory birds, too. Not a lot was said about the people,=20 mostly just plants and animals. They blame it on El Ni=F1o. NOAA said that=20 "El Ni=F1o is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system=20 in the tropical Pacific having important consequences for=20 weather around the globe. Among these consequences are=20 increased rainfall across the southern tier of the US and=20 in Peru." . . . "El Ni=F1o was originally recognized by=20 fisherman off the coast of South America as the appearance=20 of unusually warm water in the Pacific ocean, occurring=20 near the beginning of the year. El Ni=F1o means The Little=20 Boy or Christ child in Spanish. This name was used for=20 the tendency of the phenomenon to arrive around Christmas." For more information and an interesting MPEG=20 animation, check out the NOAA web page at:=20 http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/el-nino-story.html =20 The United States received more rain than=20 necessary, especially in our deserts. And it appears that=20 certain places in the North East United States are about=20 to have a bumper crop of all plant life this year. But,=20 Mexico is not getting enough rain. So, they're having=20 this little problem, which is quickly becoming our problem. And now, our U.S. EPA is wondering how to=20 respond. Driving might be curtailed in our Southern=20 States, too. Not that it would help anything, of course. =20 But EPA would like an excuse to pass even more strict=20 regulations, and Al Gore wants us out of our cars. The=20 smoke provides a good excuse. Yet, the source of the problem is in Mexico. =20 And the fires were started by humans. Intentionally. =20 They clear land like that every year. No matter, though. =20 Our EPA bureaucratic lawmakers are on the job. And they=20 cannot be expected to sit back and do nothing for very=20 long. The United States offered fire-fighting help=20 in the form of manpower and aircraft. But the Mexican=20 officials said they do not need anymore aircraft help from=20 us, which seems very strange. The aircraft carry water,=20 and dump it on the fires. The problem is that the largest water source=20 down there would be the oceans. However, salt water on=20 farmland is not really good for the proposed crops. So, they have over one-million acres burning,=20 and we get the smoke. And soon, probably, the new EPA=20 regulations. TIGER NEWT By: Craig M. Brown -- for Heads Up Isn't it great? Our embattled Speaker has=20 once again located his spine. Lately he has been blasting=20 the White House and its treasonous occupants on everything=20 from selling our national security to turning the White=20 House into a bordello. Way to go, Newt! At last you're=20 saying the things that have needed saying for five years. But wait a minute. I just started looking at=20 some of the things you're doing -- or more accurately, not=20 doing. All of us who follow the Internet know about the=20 atrocious and unconstitutional American Heritage Rivers=20 Initiative that our President authorized with an Executive=20 Order on April 8th. That order, which would strip all=20 state and local control of our rivers and tributaries and=20 send it to a federal bureaucracy, has been decried by=20 state legislatures across the country. It also caught the=20 attention of one of the few members of Congress who=20 actually seems to care about the United States=20 Constitution. I'm referring to Idaho's Helen Chenoweth,=20 who introduced HR 1842, which would defund the AHRI. This=20 is a straightforward bill that all our Congress people,=20 except those 58 Members in the socialist "Progressive=20 Caucus," would have to support. So what has happened to Helen Chenoweth's=20 HR 1842 since it was introduced last year? According to=20 Tom DeWeese in his latest report, it has been sitting on=20 Newt Gingrich's desk, gathering dust. If Newt would=20 release it to the floor for a vote, there is little doubt=20 that it would move quickly to the Senate for ratification=20 with a veto proof vote. But it seems Newt is too busy=20 talking the talk to walk the walk. The same goes for President Clinton's latest=20 abomination against state sovereignty and the rights of=20 the American people. This is his Executive Order that=20 makes state and local governments subservient to federal=20 regulators. He did this without his usual fanfare in the=20 rose garden, surrounding himself with a crowd of=20 multiracial children, all wondering why they were there. =20 No, he signed this one quietly while hiding away in=20 England. No cameras, no press releases. We had to find=20 it out by tapping into the White House web site. This=20 particular Executive Order, in one stroke of the=20 Presidential pen, eliminates the freedoms our forefathers=20 guaranteed us and we have been fighting to preserve ever=20 since. It was signed on the 14th of May and will become=20 law thirty days after the signing. Unless it is stopped=20 by Congress, that is. And here again, if our Speaker of the House=20 doesn't get up and act like the leader of the majority=20 party by denouncing this assault on state sovereignty=20 before it becomes law on June 14th, we will see a=20 completely unfettered onslaught of federal regulatory=20 agencies treading upon our liberties. But the blame=20 cannot end with Newt Gingrich alone, because one strong=20 voice by any member of Congress would light a flame that=20 would kill this Presidential order. I live in Kentucky, and I know full well the=20 determination of Kentuckians to resist federal regulators=20 intent on taking away our freedoms. I know how we have=20 besieged our Kentucky Congressional delegation, headed by=20 Jim Bunning, with demands that they support us by getting=20 us out of the AHRI. We have been met with silence. This=20 has caused us to stop and wonder what has happened to our=20 fiercely conservative Congressman Bunning who once stole=20 our hearts by standing firm against the excesses of big=20 government. Now, when our state, which is bordered on three=20 sides by the Ohio River, is threatened by the American=20 Heritage Rivers Initiative, Congressman Bunning will not=20 even go so far as to request that his district be excluded=20 from this program. Today, Jim Bunning, Newt Gingrich, and=20 all of those who we brought to the dance, seem to be=20 telling us that their dance cards are filled. -- End - I would remind you; extremism in the defense=20 of liberty is no vice. . . . And let me remind you also,=20 that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. -- Barry Goldwater =20 at the 1964 Republican National Convention=20 [------------------------- 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, 1 Jun 1998 07:50:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: IT DIDN'T START WITH LORAL (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 10:16:57 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: IT DIDN'T START WITH LORAL Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 11:22:59 -0500 From: Washington Weekly Subject: It Didn't Start With Loral: Apparently-To: wwlist@dolphin.gulf.net IT DIDN'T START WITH LORAL The Clinton National Security Fire Sale By Carl Limbacher OYSTER BAY -- The revelation that the Clinton administration may have traded U.S. national security for campaign cash from China exploded like a Long March rocket just two weeks ago. Johnny Chung's confession to investigators that some of the money he donated to help re-elect Bill Clinton came directly from the People's Liberation Army finally set off mainstream media smoke alarms. On the Sunday chat shows, the topic is picking up steam - - and has even managed to supplant Monica-gate as the biggest bulb on the Clinton scandalabra. But the story of Bill Clinton's national security sell out doesn't begin with Jeff Gerth's May 16 New York Times bombshell about Liu Chaoying and her PLA bagman, Mr. Chung. Nor did it start when Gerth began exploring the Loral Corp.'s technology transfers to China on the Times front page six weeks earlier. In fact, the Clinton administration has long demonstrated what could only be described as a pattern and practice of behavior towards China: a series of decisions where the best interests of America have consistently taken a back seat to the designs of Clinton's Chinese patrons. It's not a pretty picture. SUPERCOMPUTERS Last year's revelation that the Clinton administration had looked the other way while supercomputer technology was transferred to potential foes foreshadowed the current controversy. In February 1997, Long Island's Newsday first reported that California's Silicon Graphics was under investigation for selling to Russia a high-powered unit that ended up in the Chelyabinsk-70 nuclear weapons laboratory. Reportedly, SGI delivered the computer without even getting the required license. No wonder. The Silicon-Chelyabinsk supercomputer was twice as powerful as anything that was legal for an American firm to ship overseas. According to the report, the Russians had been very anxious to acquire the high tech equipment. And they made no bones about how they intended to use it. In a Sept. '96 letter to then Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, Russia's Nuclear Energy Minister Viktor Mikhaylov explained that he wanted the high performance computer to "guarantee the reliability of....Russia's nuclear stockpile." Just days after the Newsday story, The Wall Street Journal reported that Silicon Graphics had sold two similar computers to China's Academy of Sciences, which conducts research into nuclear weapons and missiles. SGI claimed that the sale was in full compliance with U.S. export regulations. But the Journal revealed that at least one of the SGI units was transferred to the Chinese without benefit of the required license. Moreover, that unit was capable of six billion theoretical operations per second, making it twice as powerful as the model SGI sold to the Russians. How was SGI allowed to get away with all this during the final years of the first Clinton term? Just lucky, perhaps. Although the fact that SGI's chairman, Edward McCracken, was a big time Democrat donor in '92 and '96 surely didn't hurt. And McCracken didn't waste any time taking advantage of the access his money bought. According to the previously cited Newsday report: It was three weeks after a private luncheon with McCracken at the White House in September, 1993, that Clinton announced sweeping liberalization of computer export standards, allowing computers of up to 194 MTOPS to be sold without a license. Until then only machines with up to 12.5 MTOPS - the power of a 486 chip desktop PC - could be sold without a license. By May of 1997, the full scope of China's American supercomputer bonanza had become public. Under the Clinton "liberalization", The Peoples' Republic of China had acquired no less than 46 of the prized high performance machines. House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde was quoted that same month by the Washington Times observing that the computer technology transfers "may have given the PRC more supercomputer capacity than the entire (U.S.) Department of Defense." COSCO'S BEACHHEAD While he was not too busy helping the Chinese build up their arsenal abroad, Mr. Clinton took time to do what he could for Chinese state business interests at home. The transfer of the Long Beach, California naval station to the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) is by now notorious. But what wasn't widely reported last year was the degree to which the Clinton White House leaned on local Long Beach office holders to pave the way for COSCO's beachhead on American soil. Here's how The New York Times described the intense White House lobbying for that deal: During a tough battle last year ('96) over how a closed Navy base in Long Beach, Calif., would be used, a Clinton administration official made what several people involved describe as highly unusual telephone calls to push for construction there of a container terminal that would be leased to a shipping company owned by the Chinese Government....There was no evidence that there was anything improper about the calls, but several officials who received them said it was highly unusual for the White House to intervene of behalf of one side in a local battle like this one, especially when the intervention benefited the cause of a private company....Several of those officials said the White House pressure had been unprecedented. "We'd never had a phone call like that in this office before," said Lee Keatinge of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. "There's no base re-use fight that's come close to Long Beach" for that kind of high level involvement. Another Long Beach official, Ruthann Lehrer, told the Times: "It was made clear that this container terminal plan was the preference of the White House, not any of the other ideas some people were talking about. This was clearly not something that the White House wanted studied further." Although the Times quoted Long Beach officials who were primarily concerned with the historic preservation of their port, others were more troubled by the tenant. Just months before Bill Clinton enlisted in the battle of Long Beach on the Chinese side, BATF and Customs agents intercepted contraband shipped on a COSCO container ship docked up the coastline in Oakland. The state owned Chinese ship was being used by the state run arms company to smuggle machine guns to American street gangs. Still, priorities are priorities. And the priority here for Bill Clinton may have had something to do with the fact that the ubiquitous and generous Mr. Chung was linked to COSCO through Hongye Zheng, a senior COSCO advisor who accompanied Chung to the White House for a Clinton radio address. "ASSAULT WEAPONS" FOR U.S. But of all the decisions, waivers and export liberalizations executed on behalf of the Chinese by the Clinton White House, none rivals what the administration did for Wang Jun, the princeling chairman of China's state owned arms conglomerate, Poly Technologies. For years, China had been doing a land office business exporting to the U.S. semi-automatic rifles and ammo made by Poly and another arms manufacturer, Norinco. Reportedly, the gun trade was worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the PRC. But suddenly in 1994, there was a problem: the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. Overnight, China's weapons cash cow evaporated. Not to worry. According to a Scripps Howard report by Michael Hedges, which ran on the front page of the March 14, 1997 edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Clinton administration granted Wang Jun's Poly Technologies importation permits to flood America with over 100,000 semi-automatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition -- despite the president's own cherished gun ban. That was on Feb. 2, 1996 -- just days before Clinton issued the first satellite waivers for Loral Corp. It gets worse. On Feb. 6, just four days after the assault weapon waivers were issued, Wang Jun was ushered into the White House for a personal meeting with Bill Clinton. Wang's escort was Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, who had laundered over $600,000 from Chinese sources for the Clinton Defense Fund. Combined with his campaign donations to the DNC, Trie's total contributions to Clinton coffers topped the million dollar mark in 1996. For that kind of money, it's a good bet Charlie Trie could bring anybody he wanted to the White House. And Charlie Trie wasn't Wang's only solid White House reference. Charlie had worked with longtime F.O.B. Ernest Green to get Wang a U.S. visa, though Wang conveniently forgot to mention that he was a Communist arms dealer on the visa application. Had he disclosed that fact, Wang Jun would never have been let in the country, let alone the White House. The day after Wang's visit with Clinton, Ernie Green's wife donated $50,000 to the DNC. Except for these import waivers, issued two years after Poly's rifles had been banned at the president's own direction, there would have been no legal U.S. market for Wang Jun's guns. Michael Hedges interviewed lawyers involved in negotiating the deal, nearly all of whom were stunned when Poly Technologies got the exclusive approval. "All of a sudden there was a breakthrough. I can't account for it.", said one attorney. Another admitted that the Clinton administration had been tying other arms importers in knots to keep guns out of the country because the president was opposed. He described the abrupt turnaround in U.S. import policy as "highly suspicious". And this was from a guy who was working to make this deal happen. Last year, Hedges told me that his evidence included signed copies of the importation permits for Wang Jun's guns. Between the on-the-record interviews and the documentation, his expose was rock solid. Yet, despite the fact that the implications of his report were absolutely staggering, only one New York or Washington paper thought its readers were entitled to this news. Eleven days later, The New York Daily News followed up on the Wang Jun 100,000 gun story. News Columnist Michael Daly managed to uncover the destination for Wang's 100,000 guns: a Detroit firm which investigators have linked to the Chinese Armed Police. The Chinese Armed Police used similar assault rifles to mow down demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The massive gun shipment would have gone through, flooding America's cities with weapons ruled inappropriate by the Clinton administration, but the deal was suspended in the wake of the aforementioned COSCO connected smuggling operation - which was short-circuited by federal agents just weeks after Wang Jun's importation waivers were granted. On the night of March 18, 1996, undercover Customs and BATF agents accepted delivery of guns smuggled aboard the COSCO ship Empress Phoenix, as part of an ongoing sting operation dubbed "Dragon Fire." The undercover agents had lured the Chinese into making a trial shipment of Chinese machine guns: a dry run set up to establish a working relationship before the Chinese granted access to their full inventory. Besides the smuggled guns, which they recommended for the California street gang market, the Chinese operatives explained that they were ready to sell everything from grenade launchers to shoulder fired Red Parakeet surface to air missiles, which they boasted could "take out a 747". (Coincidentally, a Boeing 747 was taken out over the skies of Long Island just months later.) That March night, federal agents secretly unpacked COSCO crates containing 2,000 Poly Technologies AK-47's delivered from the hold of the Empress Phoenix. It was the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in the history of U. S. law enforcement. With that claim to fame, one might expect the agents responsible for Operation Dragon Fire to be boasting of their unqualified success. However, as the BATF's Dick Stoltz and the Customs Bureau's Matthew King explained all of the above to Vanity Fair Magazine last December, they emphasized that Dragon Fire's goal was much larger. The real targets of their undercover investigation were Poly and Norinco lieutenants who controlled the deal from China and whom Stoltz and King had managed to lure to America for a brief visit. And they suspected Wang Jun's direct involvement. As King told Vanity Fair: "Can you imagine the reactions or how Congress would have voted (on MFN for China) if we had been allowed to keep going? If we had arrested the Norinco officials who had come here to sell Red Parakeet missiles? If Dragon Fire had been able to nail the princelings? This country's China policy would be a hell of a lot different today." So why, instead of stopping with the March 18th gun seizure, didn't they keep going? Stoltz and King had wanted to - but inexplicably, somehow word had leaked about Dragon Fire. First their office got a call from a Los Angeles Times reporter, who shocked them with his detailed knowledge of their supposedly still secret sting. This reporter's silence was purchased with the promise of an even bigger exclusive after the investigation had culminated in indictments of Chinese kingpins. Shortly thereafter, The New York Times called and had to be promised a similar deal to keep the investigation secret. But it was too late. After the second inquiry Stoltz and King realized that their own undercover agents were now in jeopardy. They had to act fast before the entire operation came unraveled. That's why Dragon Fire's ultimate prize turned out to be Chinese AK-47's rather than the Chinese operatives close to arms merchant, Wang Jun. The mystery of the Dragon Fire leak has never been solved. But there are disturbing clues. Reporters for both the L.A. and New York Times worked in Washington, where the only people familiar with Dragon Fire were top government officials. According to Vanity Fair, the journalists involved would reveal only that their tips came from "diplomatic sources". And evidently these reporters weren't the only ones who got the word. Several of Wang Jun's top lieutenants hotfooted it back to China just one jump ahead of federal indictment. One was Robert Ma, chief of Poly Technologies' U.S. subsidiary, who fled just two days before his arrest warrant was executed. Was a federal probe into a massive Chinese arms smuggling operation foiled by insiders who knew the investigation put Clinton's China connection at risk? Is it significant that leaks about an investigation run out of San Francisco came from a Washington source? If so, this would constitute a more blatant (though potentially less dangerous) national betrayal than even Clinton's Loral satellite waivers. If the Loral waivers damaged national security, as a still secret internal Pentagon study reportedly claims, then what national interest, pray tell, was served by sabotaging an investigation into Chinese gun smuggling? And just which Americans would have benefited when the White House tossed it's own gun control policy over the side to welcome in 100,000 outlawed Chinese guns? Though the press has virtually ignored this aspect of the Clinton "China First" policy, House Government Reform and Oversight Chairman Dan Burton has not. Reached Friday on Sean Hannity's New York talk radio show, Burton told me: "We continue to investigate the Wang Jun connection. Our concentration has been on the illegal campaign contributions and Wang Jun is one of the people that we've been looking into. Obviously if there was a quid pro quo where the president signed off on those guns coming into the country in exchange for campaign contributions, that's something that he should be held accountable for and we are looking into that." Quid quo pro or not, this president needs to explain why his administration waived its own gun law for a Chinese princeling arms merchant whose lieutenants were intent on smuggling even more to firepower to American street gangs. Published in the Jun. 1, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #145 *************************