From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #154 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, June 24 1998 Volume 02 : Number 154 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 98 08:10:33 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Cannibalism and LEOs (fwd) On Jun 22, Grubb, Ken wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > The Federales are now feeding on dissenters within the ranks. > > http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a337331.htm > > Ken Grubb > Miami, FL [------------------------- 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, 22 Jun 98 11:34:30 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Never Again (fwd) On Jun 22, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > Never Again > Hearthside, June 19 > > "I heard no mention of the loss of personal freedom... Apparently this was > not much of a sacrifice. They couldn't have cared less." > > The quotes in this Daily Reflection are from William Shirer, Hitler and > the Third Reich: First Impressions, from The Nightmare Years: 1930-1940 > (Little, Brown, and Co., 1984) May they indeed scare the hell out of you. > > In a conversation with an acquaintance about Executive Order 13083 and the > rapid and ruthless demolition of State autonomy and authority, my > intelligent and usually rational friend told me, "You have to admit, Dave, > that increasing federal power would make things a whole lot easier." > > Yes, indeed. Easier... > > "What the outside world had not realized and what I was just beginning to > comprehend was that the Austrian-born dictator was giving the Germans -- > or most of them -- what they wanted... [H]e had unified the country, > stamping out the old divisions of lands, states, and provinces... Germany > had until then remained a sort of confederation, with each member...having > its own government... Hitler had made short work of that. No more > provincial governments or legislatures to put the brake on Berlin." > > If there was ever any doubt about William Jefferson Clinton's aspirations > to power, let them be settled. This American-born would-be dictator has > signed and delivered a much talked about -- but equally ignored -- > Executive Order 13083, which effectively makes "short work" of our > nation's divisions of lands and states, with their own governments. > > An Executive Order is a historically significant way for the president to > by-pass the Constitution and the legal means of creating law -- and power. > Originally, Executive Orders were commands that presidents made to address > their staffs. They were corrupted, and under Teddy Roosevelt, who wrote > over 1,100 of them, became a means of writing laws without Congress. Since > then they have become the president's greatest tool and most personally > fulfilling source of authority. > > Executive Orders have created the means for a president, or his "named > authority," to slip past the Constitution and the laws of Congress to > relocate population segments, control all shipping, all power and food > distribution, the seaways, radio waves, utilities and fuels. > > Yes, they are real. Yes, they are really in place. > > Now, William Jefferson Clinton has eliminated the authority of each and > every state, in all circumstances, from resisting the encroachment of his > federal mandates. > > By a stroke of his pen, the laws of the individual states are gone -- they > must fall to federal edict -- if any of an all-inclusive string of > conditions can be applied. The dictator has authority and supremacy if any > resistance can be shown to affect or involve neighboring states, if there > is a "need" for federal standards, if state control "imposes an additional > burden," if states have not "adequately protected" rights as defined by > the federal government, if the state shows "reluctance" due to "fear," if > the state impedes "regulatory goals" of any federal plan, if it in any way > "relates to" federally managed lands or resources, or if Indian tribes are > involved or affected. > > "The swift and ruthless unification of the Reich had answered, I began to > feel, a deep yearning in the Germans to be one. It had also made Germany > stronger and, for Hitler, easier to manage. It was this urge to be strong > again..." > > Never again. > > "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine > in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of > hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, > and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro ... > They shall fall, and never rise again. (Amos 8:11-14 Webster's) > > Dave and Helen Delany [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 98 00:16:20 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Do We "HOLD THESE TRUTHS" Today? (fwd) On Jun 22, Jim H. Hill Jr. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] LETTER TO THE EDITOR (299 words) 6/22/98 Do We "HOLD THESE TRUTHS" Today? July 4, 1776, fifty-six men pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor as their commitment to a list of principles they believed were absolute truths. At the top of that list was the unalienable right to life. That document is known as the Declaration of Independence. January 22, 1973, nine Supreme Court justices legalized the utmost form of discrimination against a certain class of Americans based on their age, location, and their desirability to their immediate families. This landmark case we know as Roe vs. Wade. When the guilty receive capital punishment, we call it a barbaric practice. Nearly every case makes the national news. Vigils are held and TVs light up from coast-to-coast. When innocent children are put to death, we call it a Constitutional right. The silent screams of these children forever go unmentioned. During the time it takes you to read this letter, six babies will die in this country -- and you and I will never know their names. Fifty-six men, who believed that the unalienable right to life was a non-debatable issue, birthed the greatest country in the history of the world. Today, our elected representatives cannot even condemn infanticide. If "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are cornerstones of freedom, will the abandonment of life ultimately lead to the "abortion" of freedom? Every 4th of July beaches and parks fill to capacity. Americans celebrate something, but most do not know what. Some remember the Founders and the principles they held. Some may question whether or not we still hold the same core values. This question will best be answered the next business day when the abortion mills fire up all across the country, at least 4000 more babies die, and another day proves that we, indeed, no longer hold those self-evident truths. Jim H. Hill Jr. 8 W 3rd St., Suite 700 Winston-Salem, NC 27101 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tel: (336) 727-2597 x3043 Email: HillJH@zeus.co.forsyth.nc.us ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Call, write, or email if you have any questions or comments. Not copyrighted. Permission granted to edit, reproduce, and distribute as desired. Okay to publish name, city/state and email address. If this was sent to the wrong address or department, please forward or let me know. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:59:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Clinton's EO from hell (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 07:29:32 -0700 From: Jack Perrine To: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Clinton's EO from hell Clinton's EO from hell=20 Stealth executive order trashes 10th Amendment=20 =20 By Sarah Foster=20 Ever since Americans got wind of the executive order on "Federalism," which the president signed without fanfare in England, May 14, the Internet's been humming with warnings about the threat it poses to the Constitution and our system of government. Word is out that EO 13083 represents a major power-grab by Clinton and his administration, and if it goes into goes into effect Aug. 12 as scheduled -- 90 days after the signing -- the U.S. Constitution will be so much confetti and Clinton can work his will on the body politic.=20 The home folks are way ahead of their elected officials on this one. To date, Democrat and Republican lawmakers alike appear oblivious to what this executive order does and have been quick to flick away constituents' concerns. Yet Republicans in particular might not be so sanguine if they realized that by issuing EO 13083 Clinton thumbed his nose at the entire Republican Party -- from former president Ronald Reagan to the GOP leadership, members of Congress, and everything they claim to represent --- and they don't even know it. If ignorance is bliss, Republicans on the Hill must be some of the happiest people around.=20 A harsh judgment? Let's take a look.=20 Clinton's order actually revokes an earlier one -- EO 12612, issued by President Reagan Oct. 26, 1987 -- and replaces it with a hideous parody, an EO from hell. It also revokes EO 12875, which Clinton himself issued on the same date, but six years later in 1993. EO 12875 promised an end to unfunded mandates and was basically a way to steal some thunder from the Right and Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Since it was never really acted upon, we won't notice it's gone.=20 The revocation of the Reagan executive order is a different matter. That's serious.=20 Both EO 12612 and its replacement deal with federalism, that is the relationship of the states to the federal government and the distribution of power between the two as established by the Constitution. They are policy directives to executive departments and agencies of the respective administrations -- guidelines to federal bureaucrats and law enforcement for determining when a regulation or legislation has "federalism implications." Therefore, they address questions of jurisdiction, state sovereignty, the degree to which the federal government can intervene in state affairs, and the extent of federal regulatory activity allowable within a state. In a word -- the limits, if any, to the power of the federal government.=20 Whoever crafted EO 13083 used the framework of its predecessor and borrowed some of its wording, but any resemblance between them stops there. When it comes to policy and constitutional interpretation, the two executive orders -- though about the same subject -- are opposed at virtually every point.=20 For example, federalism itself -- according to Reagan's EO 12612 -- is "rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government." Not surprisingly, EO 13083 doesn't talk about small government and political liberty, nor is there any explanation as to why federalism was adopted as a system in the first place, merely that it's somehow "premised" on a system of checks-and-balances. According to the Clinton view of federalism it's OK for the "supreme" government to be of gargantuan size and unlimited scope and power so long as it's "balanced."=20 By issuing his executive order, Reagan was trying to repair the damage to our political system wrought by Supreme Court decisions and the "mission creep" of federal agencies. Towards that end EO 12612 stresses state sovereignty, sets real limits on how far regulatory agencies can go in carrying out mandates by Congress, and above all, specifically reaffirms that the Tenth Amendment -- the one that says that powers not delegated by the Constitution to the national government, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.=20 Consider these quotes from EO 12612:=20 "The Constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, state and national, is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution."=20 "Acts of the national government ... that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the framers."=20 "In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, the presumption of sovereignty should rest with the individual states. Uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government should be resolved against regulation at the national level."=20 Clinton's EO 13083, on the other hand, never mentions state sovereignty, enumerated powers, nor for that matter the Tenth Amendment. Here's a major pronouncement on federalism by a sitting president with no reference to the Tenth Amendment!=20 The heart of both executive orders is the criteria for policymaking -- the whys and wherefores that justify federal intervention in state affairs. For Reagan this was to be undertaken only if there were "clear and certain constitutional authority" for any federal activity, and such activity must be necessitated by "a problem of national scope."=20 That's way too restrictive for Clinton and his vision of big-is-beautiful government. EO 13083 empowers bureaucrats and federal agencies in his administration to "determine" for themselves if there is "constitutional and legal authority" for whatever they want to do without concerning themselves unduly about "clear and certain constitutional authority." And why limit federal action to mere problem-solving? For Clinton federal action is justified by a host of "matters of national or multi-state scope." To quote a few:=20 When decentralization might increase the cost of government and impose additional burdens on the taxpayer.=20 When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States.=20 When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities.=20 When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations or international obligations.=20 That last is the worst of the lot. The agencies already claim they have a right to manage natural resources on private land, and with EO 13083 in place as official policy it will be much harder for a property owner to launch a challenge in court or for a "reluctant" state or local government to tell the feds to go home to Washington.=20 As for the surreptitious reference to international obligations -- that should have set off alarm bells, at least among Republicans, but didn't. The president's not talking only about treaties (though those are bad enough, goodness knows), but about deals and arrangements he makes with foreign governments like China, or decisions he makes on his own. For instance, take the Kyoto Summit's Convention on Global Warming -- one of many treaties that advance the agenda for world-wide eco-fascism. Though unratified by the Senate, Clinton has adopted it as a policy for his administration. Since the convention is a creature of the UN, Clinton can put our country under its mandates and deflect criticism by saying he's only following obligations.=20 And as if the green agenda weren't bad enough, the rationale of international obligations increases Clinton's warmaking powers exponentially. He's effectively given himself unlimited authority to send the boys to Bosnia, Cyprus, India, Pakistan -- anywhere and whenever he wants to do a show of force number. No need to ask Congress nor even the UN for a go-ahead. With EO 13083 he can just call up the troops.=20 So what's the bottom line on EO 13083? Is it as bad as folks are saying? Yes, it is. Can it completely wipe out what's left of the Constitution? You bet. Can it be stopped? Sure. But don't count on it. Most members of Congress -- including Republicans -- don't want to face down the president, and that's what canceling this executive order would require. Worse, our congressmen don't seem to give a zip about the Constitution or the survival of this country. If they did, we wouldn't be in the mess we are and Clinton wouldn't be on his way to China. With EO 13083 in his pocket, you can bet he's laughing all the way to Beijing.=20 =20 =A9 1998 Western Journalism Center=20 =20 Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:59:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: A mightly blow against forfiture (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 07:50:23 -0700 From: Jack Perrine To: greg@minerva.com, bdolan@use.usit.net, ralphspud@aol.com, steve@kura.jpl.nasa.gov, pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: A mightly blow against forfiture June 23, 1998 High Court Reins In Overweening Government By ROGER PILON The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday struck a blow for both common sense and the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the court's four liberals, ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment limits the amount of money the government can seize from an individual for his failure to declare that he was taking money out of the country. If ever one needed evidence that the nation's forfeiture laws are in desperate need of reform, yesterday's case, U.S. v. Bajakajian, should provide it. On June 9, 1994, Hosep Bajakajian and his wife, immigrants from Syria, were waiting with their two daughters at the Los Angeles International Airport to board a flight to Cyprus when U.S. Customs agents, using trained dogs, discovered $230,000 in cash in their checked luggage. An agent approached the Bajakajians, informing them that they were required to report any money they were taking out of the country in excess of $10,000. Coming from a culture in which government agents often seize money on the spot, for their personal use, Mr. Bajakajian told the agent that he had $8,000 and his wife had $7,000. A search by the agents turned up a total of $357,144. The money had been earned legally through Mr. Bajakajian's gas-station business and was meant for repaying relatives who had helped him get started. Nevertheless, the government pursued Mr. Bajakajian, who pleaded guilty to trying to transport the money outside the U.S. without filing a report. The government also sought forfeiture of the entire $357,144, but a trial judge ruled that a forfeiture of more than $15,000 would be unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause. The government wanted every last dollar, so it appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Under the forfeiture statute, a court imposing a sentence on someone found guilty of failing to report, as Mr. Bajakajian was, "shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense." Although vague criminal statutes are supposed to be construed against the government, rarely does that happen when the issue is forfeiture. There are three basic rationales for forfeiture: contraband, ill-gotten goods and "facilitation." In most cases, the first two raise no problems: Few would object when counterfeit cash or the proceeds of a robbery are forfeited. But what is meant by property that "facilitates" a crime? It means that if you take back a second mortgage when you sell your house, and the buyer uses the house for prostitution, you lose your mortgage when the government seizes the home, for the house "facilitated" the crime. It means that if someone hires you and your charter jet to transport drug money, unbeknownst to you, you lose your jet, since it was an "instrument" of crime. Those examples, taken from real cases, have a thousand variations all across this country, and as many tragic stories behind them. Yet the courts have done nothing about it because, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist put it in a 1995 case, the law is "too firmly fixed in the punitive and remedial jurisprudence of the country to be now displaced." Two members of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in ruling for Mr. Bajakajian, found that the $357,144 was not the "instrumentality" of the crime. "The crime is the withholding of information, not the possession or the transportation of the money," the judges found. Yesterday, a majority of the Supreme Court agreed. What is perhaps most interesting is not the uncommon presence of Justice Thomas among the court's liberals but the approach he brought to the task before him. Bajakajian fell not on the civil side of forfeiture law, where so much of the mischief today takes place, but on the criminal side. In criminal-forfeiture cases, the government cannot simply seize property on a mere probable-cause showing that it may have been "involved" in a crime. Rather, the government must find the owner guilty of a crime before his property can be forfeited. That means that forfeiture is a form of "punishment," so that the Excessive Fines Clause comes to the fore, at least in principle. But Bajakajian was the first case in the court's history striking down a fine as "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment. Finding no text or history precisely on point, Justice Thomas drew from the Cruel and Unusual Punishments side of the Eighth Amendment to conclude, by analogy, that "a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense." But why does the judiciary, rather than the legislature, get to make that call? The legislature does make the call about appropriate punishments, Justice Thomas says. Moreover, "any judicial determination regarding the gravity of a particular criminal offense will be inherently imprecise," he adds. But that doesn't mean that the court's deference must be total. When the fine or punishment is "grossly disproportionate," the court must step in. Judicial activism? No. But neither is it judicial restraint of a kind that ignores the plain language of the Constitution. Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing yesterday for the four conservative dissenters, was perplexed, to put it charitably. Repeatedly likening Mr. Bajakajian's failure to declare the amount of currency he was taking out of the country--his only crime--to "smuggling," Justice Kennedy went on to address the difficulty of proving money laundering--as if that were at issue here. The government "was unable to adduce affirmative proof of another crime in this particular case," Justice Kennedy noted, adding that "because of the problems of individual proof, Congress found it necessary to enact a blanket punishment." Thus, whatever the amount--$300,000 or $3 million--it is all subject to forfeiture. The reasoning here is, well, chilling. Rather than look at the Constitution, we look at the government's problems of proof. The government could not prove that Mr. Bajakajian had not done more than fail to fill out a form--but he might have. Given that, Justice Kennedy claims, Congress is entitled to make the punishment as large as may be necessary to deter such possible crimes--no matter how many people get hurt along the way. That is deference with a passion--a passion for crime-fighting. It is the passion that has given us the forfeiture law we have today. At the founding, fortunately, that passion was checked by a greater passion--the love of liberty and the fear of overweening government. It is a good sign that Justice Thomas has returned us to the first principles of the matter. Mr. Pilon is director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. Return to top of page | Format for printing=20 Copyright =A9 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.=20 =20 Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 98 12:42:48 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: ABC's Slander (fwd) On Jun 23, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here is ABC's address. They are going to be socially sodomizing gun owners' all week. Let's stay on top of them and keep hammering back. Please pass this on to your freinds, club members etc. http://www.abcnews.com/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 98 21:02:54 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: NCIPC official policy enclosed (fwd) On Jun 23, wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "Scientific Jargon" by Dyrk Schingman, Oregon State University After several years of studying and hard work, I have finally learned scientific jargon. The following list of phrases and their definitions will help you to understand that mysterious language of science and medicine. "IT HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN"... I didn't look up the original reference. "A DEFINITE TREND IS EVIDENT"...These data are practically meaningless. "WHILE IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS"... An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published "THREE OF THE SAMPLES WERE CHOOSEN FOR DETAILED STUDY"... The other results didn't make any sense. "TYPICAL RESULTS ARE SHOWN"... This is the prettiest graph. "THESE RESULTS WILL BE IN A SUBSEQUENT REPORT"... I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded. "THE MOST RELIABLE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED BY JONES"... He was my graduate student; his grade depended on this. "IN MY EXPERINCE"... once "IN CASE AFTER CASE"... Twice "IN A SERIES OF CASES"... Thrice "IT IS BELIEVED THAT"... I think. "IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT"... A couple of other guys think so too. "CORRECT WITHIN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE"... Wrong. "ACCORDING TO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS"... Rumor has it. "A STATISTICALLY ORIENTED PROJETION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE FINDINGS"... A wild guess. "A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF ABTAINABLE DATA"... Three pages of notes were obilterated when I knocked over a glass of beer. "IT IS CLEAR THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENA OCCURS"... I don't understand it. "AFTER ADDITIONAL STUDY BY MY COLLEAGUES"... They don't understand it either. "THANKS ARE DUE TO JOE BLOTZ FOR ASSITANCE WITH THE EXPERIMENT AND TO ANDREA SCHAEFFER FOR VALUABLE DISCUSSIONS"... Mr. Boltz did the work and Ms. Shaeffer explained to me what it meant. "A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT AREA FOR EXPLORATORY STUDY"... A totally useless topic selected by my committee. "IT IS HOPED THAT THIS STUDY WILL STIMULATE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THIS FIELD"... I quit. This may be used or broadcast in any form as long as I recieve credit. Dyrk Schingman [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:54:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:50:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Hartman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Prozac Implicated in Oregon School Shooting The chorus on this topic is getting louder and louder. Here's an excerpt from another recent article. Another recent study showed correlation between the onset of the use of Prozac-like drugs in schoolage children and the drop in average SAT scores in this country. Apparently the two curves originate in the same school year. Not conclusive by itself, but definitely food for thought. I wonder if parents, teachers, and other supervisory adults look to drugs as a quick fix to "behaviorial problems" in children. If so, those adults bear at least some of the blame for what's happening. Raising and educating children is a serious commitment, not something to be fixed with a pill or an injection. - ----- by MAUREEN SIELAFF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON - Before going on a wild shooting spree at his Springfield Oregon high school that left 2 dead and 22 injured, Kip Kinkel had been attending anger control classes and was taking a prescription drug called Prozac. This particular drug has factored in almost all wild shooting sprees which have taken place in the last ten years. Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, Indiana was recently sued over the homicidal tendencies this drug is alleged to induce in patients. Prozac is commonly given to youth as a treatment for depression. In the book "Prozac and other Psychiatric Drugs," by Lewis A. Opler, M.D., Ph.D., the following side effects are listed for Prozac: apathy; hallucinations; hostility; irrational ideas; and paranoid reactions, antisocial behavior; hysteria; and suicidal thoughts. Though many are demanding stricter gun control laws as a solution to this sudden increase in homicidal shootings, these events do not appear to correlate to a sudden increase in firearm ownership. But when the percentage of these killers that are on Prozac is compared to the percentage of the general public on Prozac, a very disturbing pattern emerges. Though Prozac does indeed help many people suffering from depression, it appears that it does indeed also drive many into homicidal rages. When Kip Kinkel's home was investigated several bombs that he had constructed were discovered. With a ban on bombs already in place, he nevertheless managed to have several in his possession that he might well have taken to school instead of guns. So the question arises, if guns had been banned like bombs, would the danger have been averted? The unmistakable answer is that it would not. And with the shootings correlating far more closely with the psychiatric drug Prozac, why is the public put in such great danger by its widespread use, while efforts are directed instead toward something that shows no correlation? Apparently it is easier to drug our youth, to fill their bodies with drugs that many times have worse side effects on their minds and spirits than the problems they have. You name the attitude and there is a drug to supposedly help or cure it. It may be time to take the War On Drugs to where it can really be effective; getting these society cop-out drugs out of our children's lives. It may be time we rise and help our children through productive activities and quit drugging them senseless. - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #154 *************************