From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #158 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, July 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 158 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Jul 98 21:06:01 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #92 (fwd) On Jul 04, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 5, 1998 #92 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ANY FORM We enjoy watching two old authoritarian Congressmen argue publicly on a Constitutional issue. And, it's especially interesting when they are both wrong. Representative Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, claims that his amendment to HR 1965, "The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act," puts the burden of proof back where it belongs -- with the government. In a "Dear Colleague" letter, Hyde writes in part: "Over the last decade, our two-century old civil asset forfeiture laws have been recruited in the war against crime. The federal government is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in proceeds from cash and property used in criminal activities. Unfortunately, it has become all too apparent in recent years that those civil asset forfeiture laws are sometimes being used in terribly unjust ways, depriving innocent citizens of their property without basic due process. Believe it or not, Federal officials have the power to seize your home, your car, your business and your bank account -- all without indictment, hearing or trial. "Imagine this. You make the mistake of buying an airplane ticket with cash -- behavior that is deemed to fit a drug courier profile -- so you are detained and searched. No drugs are found, but the agents seize the cash in your wallet saying they have "probable cause" to believe that the money was intended to buy drugs. You are allowed to leave and are not charged with any crime, but the agents keep your property. "What recourse do you have to get your property back? Very little, because the law treats the property, rather than you, as the offending object. None of the Constitutional or procedural safeguards of the criminal law are available, because you are not being threatened with a deprivation of liberty. In fact, the law doesn't require that you ever be charged with a crime. You have to prove a negative, that your property was never used in a crime, that it was 'innocent.' But the alleged criminal conduct needn't even involve you -- it could just as easily be a crime allegedly committed by the previous owner of your property, or by someone who, unbeknownst to you, used your property in a criminal endeavor." Lest we forget here, the Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." As we understand the meaning of the words "shall not," the Fourth Amendment is rather straightforward and easy to understand. But, if there is any doubt, the Fifth Amendment carries that thought on a little further, stating: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Legalizing asset forfeiture, then, would make the above words of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments insignificant. Legalizing forfeiture is analogous to providing the police with a general warrant with which to search and seize anything they wish. That is, as we saw, unconstitutional. Throughout the years Hyde, of course, approved forfeiture in numerous bills. For instance, readers may remember that he gave us that wonderfully crafted piece of unconstitutional legislation called the Anti-terrorist Act. Anyway, along comes Representative Gerald Solomon, chairman of the Rules Committee. Solomon's "Dear Colleague" sounds like he believes the government owns everything and can take back whatever it wants. He complains that Hyde's amendment would: Elevate the burden of proof on the Government to the "clear and convincing evidence" standard; take money from the Assets Forfeiture Fund to pay for defense counsel; allow criminals to protect their ill-gotten property by transferring it to third parties such as spouses, minor children and friends; and, give seized property back to the defendant, pending trial -- allowing it to be depleted or hidden. "Because of these provisions," Solomon writes, "there is not a single law enforcement organization that supports the manager's amendment. In addition, the Clinton Administration is adamantly opposed to Chairman Hyde's bill." Yeah. No doubt. Law enforcement will miss all that money they have been stealing from people. One little known fact is that it is not just the departments that benefit from the money. Many police officers around the country have been supplementing their personal incomes with a little unauthorized forfeiture, too. In any form, forfeiture is thievery under color of law. H.R. 1965 can be found at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.1965: CLINTON'S PREPARATION Much has been written here, and in other publications, about Clinton's Executive Order (13083, dated May 14, 1998) on Federalism and there is no need to repeat that. However, when we compared Clinton's order line by line with Ronald Reagan's Executive Order on Federalism (12612, dated October 12, 1987), we couldn't help but notice that Clinton may have had a very specific reason for issuing his order and repealing Reagan's. Throughout Section 2, Reagan ordered that "There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles." Reagan instructed that "Federal oversight of State administration is neither necessary nor desirable." And he added a number of limits to the regulation process that would protect States rights. For Instance, in Section 2(g) President Reagan orders: "Acts of the national government -- whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature -- that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers." In Section 2(i) Reagan ordered: "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." By voiding President Reagan's order, Clinton removed most of the constraints on federal agencies in relation to State governments. Federal agencies are to be free to do as they wish. We still have the words written in the Constitution itself, of course. But lately, no one in Washington even refers to the Constitution unless it happens to benefit a personal argument. For reference, readers may find both Executive Orders at: http://www.uhuh.com/laws/list-law.htm So, why did Clinton gut the Federalism concept so imbedded in our American history and allow federal agencies to ride roughshod over State governments? For clarification, we have to look to the specific definition of 'agency' Clinton referenced in his Executive Order. 44 USC 3502 reads in part: "The term 'agency' means any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency." Well, well, well . . . we see that now the military may promulgate rules and regulations of national impact. Yeah, the military; as in Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. The full text of the law is at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/44/3502.shtml Read it and weep. It appears we've been hoodwinked by the Slickster. There's even more though: A few members of Congress are upset about the War and Emergency Powers laws Clinton has available to him. The background buzz is that they mean to change those laws as soon as possible. Under the law today, only the president may declare a national emergency, and only the president may end one. Worse, during a national emergency, the president wields nearly dictatorial powers. This very same arrangement was allowed by Article 48 of the German Constitution in the 1930's. That was how the German President -- Hitler -- was able to suspend the Constitution by presidential decree alone. Many Americans believe we should repeal those war and emergency power laws before we end up with a dictator, too. Already, federal agencies operate like little Soviet Politburos. FEMA is no different. In fact, in any type of major emergency, FEMA actually becomes a real American Politburo! It is responsible to no one, other than the president. And, it has full authority to control everything, other than the president. And remember, under Clinton's new Executive Order, the military, which will be under direct control of FEMA, can also promulgate regulations. Convenient, isn't it. Looking a little deeper: Today, the Director of FEMA is none other than Clinton's Arkansas crony James Lee Witt. Witt was a high ranking Arkansas State Police officer before moving to FEMA. He was also profiled in a number of publications as being instrumental in the cover- up of the Clinton's Whitewater affair. For some reason, the White House is centralizing power and allowing the federal 'agencies' (including FEMA and the military) unprecedented power over State and local governments -- and hence, the American people. This is all quite unconstitutional, of course. Nevertheless, if Clinton declares martial law under guise of a national emergency no one, except the military, could stop him. The craven Congress is, of course, collectively sitting on one hand and covering its mouth with the other. Obviously, there will be no support for our Constitution in Congress unless we force it. - ----------------------------- NOTE: We thank the many people who forwarded us a copy of their letters to Congress on this issue. As always, we recommend sending a simple message on a postcard; such as: Remove Clinton's Executive Order on Federalism, and restore Reagan's, or we will not be desiring your services in Congress any longer. It's interesting how that type of message works in an election year. GOOD COURT, BAD COURT Some police are of the opinion that they can stop and search anyone at any time (like at airports), but the courts are starting to disagree. In Norwood v. Bain last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a lower court decision that mass searches of motorcyclists were unconstitutional. However, the court said that videotaping them during a license check was permissible. The problem started in September 1995, during a fundraising event for the Piedmont Red Cross sponsored by ABATE, a motorcycle enthusiast organization. As the bikers entered the Piedmont Fairgrounds, each of the approximately 500 attendees were required by the City of Spartanburg Police to show identification. They were also videotaped, and some of them were required to fill out questionnaires and submit to a search of their possessions. The police, of course, gave no explanation for their actions at the time. Later, the police department used the excuse that it heard rumors that gang members from Pagans and Hells Angels planned to clash at the event. The two motorcycle gangs have a history of fighting but, of course, neither group attended the charity fundraising event. Under the sponsorship of the ACLU, Columbia civil rights attorneys W. Gaston Fairey and Rochelle Romosca McKee filed suit against the Spartanburg Police Department on behalf of more than 100 of the motorcyclists who had been detained and searched. "We are pleased the court again found that searching a motorist without probable cause of wrongdoing violates the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizures," said Steven Bates, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina. This is a good win for the ACLU and the area's outstanding citizens who also like to ride motorcycles. Police may stop drivers and ask for a license, says the court. They may also videotape the process if they have equipment available. But, that is as far as it goes. No searches. Darn. That's almost Constitutional. . . . . We do not agree, however, with another American Civil Liberties Union case settled last month. The National Capital Area ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of a group of D.C. children and their parents, which they laud as a grand victory for the rights of kids and families. In 1995, the D.C. government passed a curfew law for kids. The law prohibited children under age 17 from being in any public place or private establishment between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays, and between midnight at 6 a.m. on weekends. In a 2-1 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, affirmed a lower-court decision that permanently prohibited enforcement of the curfew. All three judges issued separate opinions. However, the majority agreed that although the city had a strong interest in preventing juvenile crime, there was no good reason to believe that the curfew law would have any significant impact on that problem, and it would seriously infringe on the basic right of liberty. "The enactment of the curfew law created a new casualty in the 'war' against crime -- the Bill of Rights," said Robert Plotkin, an attorney at the D.C. law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker who handled the case for the ACLU. "The court's ruling today restores it to life." The court, therefore, allows every juvenile delinquent in the city to run wild all night long -- and D.C. has an abundance of juvenile delinquents. And by the way, since when did children get liberty? Have American kids suddenly been emancipated? Kids need rest in order to do well in school. The neighborhood needs peace and quite at night so working people can rest. And the government has a duty to keep these kids safe and away from the riffraff lurking in the shadows at night. Many children in "murder capital USA" will die because of this ruling. And at least half of them will be innocent bystanders. Children need strong supervision and direction, not liberty. THE FAILED DRUG WAR A June 8 press release from the "Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America" caught our eye for many reasons. One reason, of course, is because illegal drug use among junior high and high school kids has nearly doubled under the Clinton Administration. The Committee Chairman is J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL); an the Co-Chairmen are Rob Portman (R-OH) & Bill McCollum (R-FL). The press release states in part: "In comments to regional economic leaders in DeKalb and Sycamore, Congressman J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) stated, 'The Congress is committed to a World War II-style battleplan to win the War on Drugs from the grassroots up. We are combining national leadership with community activism. In late April, our 36-member Task Force deployed a legislative battleplan to win the War on Drugs on three major fronts: deterring demand because prevention starts at home; stopping supply because it is our duty to control our borders; and, increasing accountability because everyone must be held responsible for their actions.'" Interesting rhetoric, but there are a few problems with that statement. The Congressman is correct. It is definitely their Constitutional duty to control our borders. But that is a failed duty! Our borders are like a sieve. Thousands of illegal aliens enter this country daily. Illegal drugs enter by the ton. Interdiction procedures for both illegal aliens and drugs are a joke, and everyone in Congress knows that. Then he said, "increasing accountability because everyone must be held responsible for their actions." That's the scary part. From coast to coast, police harass thousands of innocent people every day in the name of the 'war on drugs.' All Congress is doing is adding yet more laws and creating a police state. We have more Americans in prison per capita than any country in the world. Yet, illegal drugs are still plentiful in Anytown, USA. As the war on illegal alcohol was lost years ago, so too is the war on illegal drugs lost today. More laws are useless. Congress must accept this, because the collateral damage produced by this war on drugs has become totally unacceptable. Hastert noted, "While the President talks about the drug problem, the Congress is taking necessary action to win the War on Drugs. I hope that as our legislative agenda continues to advance on Capitol Hill that the President joins our national commitment by signing these bills into law. Quite frankly, I'm somewhat encouraged that the White House is recognizing the need to fight on both the demand side and supply side and hopefully we'll get them to add accountability to the fight. But more than that, we need action, not just words, when it comes to this Administration's drug war." No, we need police foot patrols around schools and in those neighborhoods with continuing open-air drug bazaars. That works. We also need to close our borders, and allow any sworn peace officer in the country to apprehend illegal aliens wherever found. Then we need to decriminalize some of the less addictive street drugs and save prison space for violent criminals. The Drug-Free Border Act of 1998 promises to add more than 1,700 border agents and increases funding for drug-screening equipment and resources along our borders. That is a step in the right direction, but only a small step. Much more is needed. Hastert concluded, "In just over a month, we've already passed five bills and we're well on our way over the next few weeks to passing the rest. The bottom line, though, is that this battle must start with mothers and fathers, teachers and preachers, civic leaders and others all working together to win the War on Drugs to protect our kids. The Congress will help provide national leadership to facilitate work with folks at home so local solutions can be developed to beat this national problem." Congress introduced 11 new anti-drug bills this round. That is not "providing leadership." That is little more than heaping more bad law on an already bad situation. The federal government should stay out of the personal lives of the American people. Rather, the government must concentrate on its duty of protecting our borders. In summary, the federal government has become a wayward employee. It's time "We the People" start holding federal officials accountable. Instead of the federal government inflicting many thousands of pages of unnecessary and oppressive laws rules and regulations on the American people annually, it is time the central government gets back to doing those things mandated to it by its job description: The Constitution. At this point, nothing else should be acceptable to the American people. -- End - The TIME Magazine poll on guns needs some attention from freedom loving Americans. Vote early and vote often. http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html [------------------------- 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: Sat, 4 Jul 98 21:07:05 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Is Gun Control a Christian Issue? (fwd) Some of you might find these arguments usefull. On Jul 04, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] (From http://www.patriarch.com/articles.html -- Patriarch magazine's Web page.) Is Gun Control a Christian Issue? It is not easy to keep a proper balance on issues like gun control. We must approach any public policy issue in a Christ-centered way, with an eye on the cross, or we do, indeed, run the risk of merely parroting the arguments of those whose only hope is in man and his institutions. We have received a number of letters on this subject and some of my brothers in our local fellowship have challenged me on the issue of balance, tone, and keeping a Christ-like attitude in these matters. Let me try to summarize how I see things, with these admonitions in mind. (1) Christians need explicitly Christian arguments on issues. I can see how Larry Pratt=92s article (Patriarch, Issue # 12) would bother some who are looking for a Christian perspective. Mr. Pratt is a godly man and elder in his church, but the piece we reprinted was written for general audiences and contained no explicit references to God or his Word. This will not be the last time we use materials on public policy issues that express what we believe are views consistent with a Christian perspective but which do not make the connection obvious. The problem is that there simply is not much written by Christians who apply the Bible thoughtfully to themes in contemporary society. But we need to add something to make the connection clear, perhaps an introduction to the article or an accompanying piece. (2) Our hope is in God, not in government or guns. One risk in taking seriously issues of public policy like gun control is that we may give the impression that we trust in political solutions to our problems or that we depend on guns for our family protection. This is not the case. Unless the Lord protects our house and watches over our nation, there is nothing we can do (Psalm 127:1). Prayer is always our first responsibility because it expresses where our true hope lies. This, however, does not remove our responsibility to act in other ways that are glorifying to God. (3) Physical defense is a godly man=92s responsibility. God is a defender of the vulnerable (Exod. 22:22-24; Psalm 68:5). Rescuing those who are threatened with harm is commanded by God, and those who fail to act will be judged (Prov. 24:11,12). Abram and David used physical force to rescue their families when they were attacked by enemies (Gen. 14; 1 Sam. 30). The commandment prohibiting murder (Exod. 20:13) suggests a responsibility to oppose those who aim to break this commandment. Inaction is complicity when it is in our power to act. We must "turn the other cheek" to personal offenses and be willing to give up all our rights, as Jesus did. Nowhere, however, does Scripture suggest that we should turn our eyes away and do nothing to protect those who are vulnerable, especially those placed by God under our protection. Keeping and using a gun for the defense of his family is one way a father bears the image of his heavenly Father-Protector. He must trust in God, not his gun; but God may choose to extend his sovereign protection through that gun. God=92s works are often executed through responsible human action. (4) Defense of the Constitution is a godly citizen=92s responsibility. We do not live in Rome under Nero. We live in a constitutional republic. Nero was the law and Christians had no grounds or means to oppose his tyranny. In the United States, the Constitution is the law which every citizen, and especially every public official, is obligated to obey. It is the responsibility of citizens to oppose those who seek to disobey the law of the land, including public officials. Failure to actively uphold the law is failure to submit to the Lord who establishes civil authority. Christian responsibility requires defense of the Second Amendment. To yield to unlawful laws in our system of government is to abdicate the responsibility which God in his providence has placed in our hands. We are not attacking government when we speak out against gun control or in support of the right to form militias; we are defending the highest law of the land from its attackers=97and that is our Christian duty! The influence of Christianity and a biblical world view made this nation possible. We are the first nation to have put the power of civil government (yes, even the power of the sword; Rom. 13:4) ultimately in the hands of the citizens. This was possible because of the character and virtue of our predominately Christian populace. Individual citizens were expected to govern themselves under God=92s law and then, in turn, participate in the governance of the nation. Our form of government is an historical outgrowth of the gospel of Christ. The personal liberty from sin and Satan which Christ grants the individual believer bore fruit in a system of government that was not only founded upon these spiritually free men, but assured their liberty in every sphere of public life. The civil liberty we enjoy in America is a result of the gospel. It is wrong for Christian Americans to revert to a sub-Christian understanding of government, to live as if they were in Rome and sheepishly acquiesce to tyranny. In the United States, the people are in charge, under God; we are responsible for the direction of this nation. I am afraid too many Christians lack the knowledge or the character to act like Christian citizens any more. It is no virtue to suffer persecution when it results from ignorance, cowardice, laziness, or a simple unwillingness to be responsible for the direction of the nation. That would be suffering for our unrighteousness. (5) Armed defense against unlawful tyranny is a last resort. In our system of government each citizen is part of the militia, the armed defenders of liberty. When the King of England broke his word and violated the laws he had promised to observe, the colonists were prepared to defend their nation with arms, but only after every diplomatic recourse had been exhausted. Today we must fight for the Constitution at the ballot box, not with bullets. But we must also assert, as the Constitution does, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and even to organize themselves as citizen militias (which was the whole point of the amendment). And, yes, the government should fear the people. That is just another way of saying that public officials ought to fear breaking their oath to uphold the law. In our republic, the citizens have the final word in defending the law, first at the ballot box, but also with bullets if tyranny should ever proceed that far. (6) Political issues are not our main task, though they ought not be neglected. The church of Jesus Christ has failed miserably in recent years to live out her calling. We have failed in our homes, in our churches, in our communities. We must begin again to proclaim the whole counsel of God, calling all men to the cross of Christ for salvation and to a life of discipleship. Government power has increased as Christians have abdicated responsibility over more and more areas of their lives: education, health care, financial security, care for the needy, etc. Our main task is not to fix the government but to proclaim the cross of Christ and start living like Jesus=92 disciples again in all these areas and more. It is too easy to blame government for our woes and to seek merely political solutions to them. At the same time, we cannot neglect our role as citizens and our stewardship for the direction of the civil government. We just have to keep our priorities in order. "Politics" is just one among many responsibilities of Christ=92s disciples. If we lose our political battles, it=92s no big deal because our hope is in God, not in government. But if we lose them because we neglected one of the duties God has given us, we will answer to Him for it. (7) Christian Americans need to study the Founding Fathers. Our Christian forefathers did not have our ambivalence about being Christians and citizens. They did not think it contradictory for Christian men to talk of the Gospel of Christ in one breath and the need for war in the next. They spoke of both without tension because they saw both as matters of Christian responsibility. They saw that war can be an application of the gospel, a Christian response to unlawful tyranny. The gospel asserts the authority of the resurrected, ascended and reigning Jesus; and maintenance of a lawful civil order (established by God) is an expression of our allegiance to our Lord and King. Patrick Henry wrote: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Larry Pratt=92s articl= e reminded us of how it was Patrick Henry who gathered the militia to oppose the unlawful acts of the British Governor in Virginia=97and issued his stirring call to arms in a church! This is the same man who cried, "Give me liberty or give me death." Those words could be spoken by a godless man concerned only with his "right" to do as he pleased. However, what the Christian patriot meant was (in expansive paraphrase): "I am willing to die to uphold the lawful order of civil government which God, in His providence, has established in this nation, an order which allows maximum liberty to self-governing Christians." I fear too many Christian men today would think it virtuous to choose death rather than fight for the liberty God has granted us under law. We are losing our country because we have forgotten what we have inherited, because we have a weak and feminized view of what it means to be Christian citizens. A generation of Christian men raised on such simplistic caricatures as "tender Jesus, meek and mild" would scold Patrick Henry were he alive today, speaking and acting as he did before. We need to rediscover the robust and manly faith that embraced the tender mercies of the gospel in one hand and the fearful responsibilities of godly citizenship in the other. They are not contradictory; they are both part of a Christian man=92s calling. In fact, given America's origins and civil structure, we could say that our citizenship responsibilities are a direct outgrowth of the gospel of Christ in history. We talk about gun control because we believe it is part of how we express our allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord=97Lord even of our nation, and our= guns. [------------------------- 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, 6 Jul 1998 15:12:16 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: article on NRA convention If anybody's interested in my take on the annual convention in Philly last month, it's on my website. http://home1.gte.net/1911a1/nra-con.htm Brad Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 "GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:42:58 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: article on NRA convention First I've heard of -half- of this, and a great site to peruse. Loved the picture of the camo-clad militia member protesting a Klan rally in MO : ). I assume that's you Brad, I plan to run it out the color printer and give some copies to Seattle Liberal friends. I love seeing their cherubic little faces light up with confusion : ) (But, gee wilickers, the president says the militia -is- the klan...) -Boyd >If anybody's interested in my take on the annual convention in Philly >last month, it's on my website. > >http://home1.gte.net/1911a1/nra-con.htm > >Brad > >Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 > >"GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction > in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up >gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 17:13:03 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: article on NRA convention > From: Boyd Kneeland > First I've heard of -half- of this, and a great site to peruse. Loved the > picture of the camo-clad militia member protesting a Klan rally in MO : ). > I assume that's you Brad, I plan to run it out the color printer and give > some copies to Seattle Liberal friends. I love seeing their cherubic little > faces light up with confusion : ) (But, gee wilickers, the president says > the militia -is- the klan...) -Boyd Thanks, Boyd! Yeah, that's yours truly in the pic. We got *great* media that day, with crews from all 4 local network TV affiliates interviewing us and doing some positive reporting. You're in or near Seattle? Will I be meeting you at the Gun Rights Policy Conference September 18-20? Brad Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 "GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 16:45:33 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: article on NRA convention Abso-lutely! Look for the formerly long haired geek with the CLAW name badge. I'm hoping other list members will show up to that too, maybe we can even get together for a roc/grpc/claw version of "wine and brie" : ) (burgers n brew? tall tales and nat'l review? OK I'll stop there). - -"Boyd in Bellevue" (ranting on finer call in shows throughout the Pugetopolis area) At 5:13 PM +0500 7/6/98, Brad Alpert wrote: >> From: Boyd Kneeland > >> First I've heard of -half- of this, and a great site to peruse. Loved the >> picture of the camo-clad militia member protesting a Klan rally in MO : ). >> I assume that's you Brad, I plan to run it out the color printer and give >> some copies to Seattle Liberal friends. I love seeing their cherubic little >> faces light up with confusion : ) (But, gee wilickers, the president says >> the militia -is- the klan...) -Boyd > >Thanks, Boyd! > >Yeah, that's yours truly in the pic. We got *great* media that day, >with crews from all 4 local network TV affiliates interviewing us and >doing some positive reporting. > >You're in or near Seattle? Will I be meeting you at the Gun Rights >Policy Conference September 18-20? > >Brad > >Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 > >"GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction > in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up >gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 98 16:31:24 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Roy is gone For those who haven't heard, a wonderful man has up and gone to meet his Lord this morning. Leonard Sly(sp?), AKA "Roy Rodgers, King of the Cowboys" of '30's-'40's movie and '50's TV fame, died of a heart attack this morning at age 86. Happy Trails Roy. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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, 6 Jul 1998 19:00:24 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: article on NRA convention > From: Boyd Kneeland > Abso-lutely! Look for the formerly long haired geek with the CLAW name badge. > > I'm hoping other list members will show up to that too, maybe we can even > get together for a roc/grpc/claw version of "wine and brie" : ) (burgers n > brew? tall tales and nat'l review? OK I'll stop there). > -"Boyd in Bellevue" (ranting on finer call in shows throughout the > Pugetopolis area) Yeah! There's be a nice bar at the hotel, count on that. SAF does good work :) Brad Come visit me at http://home1.gte.net/1911a1 "GOA doesn't punish our enemies with a one-letter reduction in the candidate's campaign rating grade. GOA fires up gunowners and the gunowners throw their asses out of office." - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jul 98 00:14:56 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: JFK PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY (fwd) On Jul 8, Greg Krawchuk wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] You can get a hold of the people who have done decades of research on monetary matters. "Michael" Journal,1101 Principale St.,Rougemont, Quebec, Canada J0L 1M0 Montreal (514) 856-5714; Rougemont (514) 469-2209; Fax (514)469-2601 Greg Krawchuk ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND JOHN F. KENNEDY John F Kennedy No United States president since Abraham Lincoln dared to go against the system and create his own money, as many of these so called elected presidents were actually only instruments or puppets of the Bankers. That is until President John F Kennedy came into Office. President Kennedy was not afraid to buck the system for he understood how the Federal Reserve System was being used to destroy the United States. As a just and honorable man, he could not tolerate such a system, for it smelled of corruption from A to Z. Certainly he must have known about the Greenbacks which Abraham Lincoln created when he was in office. On June 4th, 1963. President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Executive Order 11210, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an interest and debt free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve. Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was perfectly obvious that Kennedy was out to undermine the Federal Reserve System of the United States. But it was only a few months later, in November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. No reason was given, of course, for anyone wanting to commit such an atrocious crime. But for those who knew anything about money and banking, it did not take long to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For surely President Kennedy must have had it in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money. It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes which Kennedy had issued were called out of circulation. Was this through an executive order of the newly installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? Was President Johnson afraid of the Bankers? Or was he one of their instruments? At any rate all of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people. A Lesson To Learn There is much that can be learned from our past history. Here we are in 1997, and the United States is still operating under the Federal Reserve System. It has already plunged our country over five trillion dollars into debt, a debt it will never be able to pay and has been responsible for every kind of corruption imaginable. Yet, barely a peep of protest can be heard from the American people. All the Bankers have to do to keep their power is to get rid of the few politicians who are honestly working for a reform in our economic system, and the people at large remain ignorant and controlled. It is obvious the American people need to be awakened to the truth. The population at large must be educated on the Federal Reserve, and then unite together to put pressure on the Government to get the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 repealed. Otherwise it will spell disaster for the United States. There can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice without a reform in our economic system, for the financiers are behind all the corruption in our Government. Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy both had the courage to stand up for principles and to fight for justice. They have both gone down in history as being true patriots of the United States. But do we citizens have the courage to follow their example? Note: In Canada, the numbers are different, the story is the same. Melvin Sickler [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #158 *************************