From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #181 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Friday, September 4 1998 Volume 02 : Number 181 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 98 17:48:50 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: GTE to Gunowners "Up Yours" This is a Prime Candidate for the, "Are you going to provide Armed Guards on site, and additional ones to walk us to/from our vehicles, or just be liable for any and all damage suits for fatal/injourious incidents incurred while going to/from your premisis", tactic, which has served us so well in the past. On Sep 2, globallaw@tidalwave.net wrote: >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >--------------302346714521 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >RKBA Defenders, > >You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE >was now posting "no guns" on the doors of it's retail outlets. In due >course I sent them a letter questioning whether this was true, and if >so, that I was highly insulted. > >To further support my argument, I citied the Lott/Mustard/Kleck/Kates >figures showing that CCW holders were proven to be far safer than your >average citizen, that CCW saves lives and reduces crime and that guns >are used to stop crime 2.5 million times each year. > >This is GTE's response to us gunowners. Essentially: "Up Yours." > >I suggest we cut off our money supply to them and that we also send them >a note telling them that unless and until they respect our Second >Amendment rights, they will be getting cut off at the knees. > >Here it is guys and gals. Let 'em have it. > > online.customer.response@gte.com > >Rick V. > >--------------302346714521 >Content-Type: message/rfc822 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline > >Return-Path: >Received: from pooh.netops.gtefsd.com ([131.131.131.131]) > by mailprime.tidalwave.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.52) > with ESMTP id 247 for ; > Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:19:45 -0400 >Received: from crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (crs.unix.chnt.gsc.gte.com [131.131.222.248]) > by pooh.netops.gtefsd.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA11324 > for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:24:42 -0400 >Received: by crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id JAA17615; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:20:07 -0400 >Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:20:07 -0400 >Message-Id: <199809021320.JAA17615@crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com> >To: globallaw@tidalwave.net >From: online.customer.response@gte.com >Subject: New Message/CCW-Sharon Tracking Number: 980821-17-1 >Content-Type: text > > >Dear Mr. Vaughn: > >Thank you for your recent correspondence to the GTE Website regarding the ban on weapons from GTE Wireless business premises. Your letter was well researched and informative and we do not dispute the statistics you provided to us regardi >ng persons carrying concealed weapons with a permit. GTE Wireless respects your right to carry a concealed weapon with a permit, however, for the protection of our employees and c >ustomers we have chosen to take a more cautious approach and ban weapons from our business premises, a decision which is allowed under state law. GTE Wireless is not alone in this decision, for it is my understanding th >at numerous businesses have adopted such a policy. We certainly do not want you to interpret our policy as an attempt to infringe upon a person s constitutional rights, for that wa >s not our intent. After careful consideration of the rights of all individuals, GTE Wireless concluded that this policy best protects the safety and well being of all concern! >! >ed. > >Again, thank you for contacting the GTE Website and for sharing your beliefs in this forum. > >Sincerely, >Sharon O'Haver >GTE Internet Response Team > > > >= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > >From: online.customer.response@gte.com > >Date: 1998-08-21 > >Subject: New Message/CCW-Sharon > > > >Dear GTE Wireless, > >Today I received some disturbing news regarding your retail outlet policies. The message stated in part that: > >>GTE Wireless (formerly Cellular One) posts >its retail stores against CCW permit holders. > >"CCW" refers to Concealed Carry of Weapons via state-issued permits. If this is true, you should know that, for the reasons listed below, I find this highly offensive and unwarranted. > >1) CCW holders have proven themselves to be more law-abiding than the average citizen. Moreover, in order to receive a CCW permit, most states require a thorough criminal history >check of the applicant; > >2) CCW holders have a safety record that surpasses police on the order of a magnitude. You stand a far greater chance of being shot by a policeman than by a CCW permittee; > >3) Smallarms in private hands are used to thwart murders, rapes and violent assaults 2,500,000 times each year. In contrast, there have been an estimated 31,000 gun-related deaths > last year, a majority attributable to intra-gang violence, suicide, and justifiable homicides [self-defense and police action]; > >4) All states that have enacted CCW-reform laws have seen violent crime drop sharply in every catagory of criminal statistics collected. In contrast, of the top six cities for murder rates, five have had long-stand >ing gun bans; > >5) The right to self-defense, thus the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is an inalienable right recognized in U.S. Constitution as applied to the States via the Supremacy Clause and th >e 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in many state Constitutions; > >6) By stating that no weapons are allowed into your stores, you are assuming strict liability for the safety of customers who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves; > >As the message cited to above has shown, the word is going out nationwide. Word of mouth natually goes along with this. Rather than select GTE for local, cellular, long distance or internet service, I will opt for a telephone service provider that hono > >Unless and until you honor the Rights recognized by our Consitution, I will see to it that you will get no further income from myself or other like-minded individuals. Please note > that there are an estimated eighty million gun owners in America - many of whom regularly communicate via the internet. > > >Very truly yours, > >Richard E. Vaughan, Esq. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:50:31 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census (fwd) >Anyone want to bet this won't be his odus operandi for everything else he >wants, too? Yup, the last shutdown wreaked havoc on the Republicans, and Slick Willie is betting that he can do it again. Keep your fingers crossed that Starr comes up with some pretty convincing evidence of a pattern of obstruction of justice. ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:02:14 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census (fwd) Jack, I don't neccessarily disagree with what you say, but I would like to add that the estimates I've seen (I like the dismal science at: www.dismal.com) are: A 20% decline in the stock market would result in a 1% decline in GDP. For 1999 the GDP growth estimate is 1.9%, a 1% decline would bring it below 1%. Not a recession, but not boom times. The mechanism for Stock Market -> GDP is the "wealth effect". People with even paper losses perceive themselves as less wealthy and curtail their spending. We've basically seen a 20%+ decline in most stocks, with the large-cap techs and the DJIA only just now capitulating. ciao, jcurtis (amateur stock watcher) - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 08:13:49 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: Re: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census (fwd) At 10:02 9/03/98 -0400, you wrote: > > > Jack, > > I don't neccessarily disagree with what you say, but I would like > to add that the estimates I've seen (I like the dismal science at: > www.dismal.com) are: > > A 20% decline in the stock market would result in a 1% decline in > GDP. For 1999 the GDP growth estimate is 1.9%, a 1% decline would > bring it below 1%. Not a recession, but not boom times. > > The mechanism for Stock Market -> GDP is the "wealth effect". > People with even paper losses perceive themselves as less > wealthy and curtail their spending. > > We've basically seen a 20%+ decline in most stocks, with the > large-cap techs and the DJIA only just now capitulating. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > (amateur stock watcher) I have read similar numbers in BARRONS over the years I just do not happen to belive them. First off, I think very very economists understand leverage. And it may well be that their concept of a 1 percent drop in spending from wealth effects is a valid number if there are small drops in wealth. However, while I do not know the exact numbers and am guessing BARRONS has over the years had several articles on the vast amount of borrowing to buy stocks. Now, this is a fine way to keep bull markets moving AS LONG AS THE INCREASES IN THE BULL MARKET PAYS the interest charges on the borrowed money. But when you have half a trillion or more in stock bought with borrowed money and the average increase in stock prices just drops to zero ....let alone falling then there is a tremendous problem in holding all that stock off the market. Next, if one interviews people who have always had savings and the sum total of their savings drops as stock take a correction they may curtail spending as in the one percent figure you gave. On the other hand over the last few years many who never had any savings suddenly bought stocks ..,,,,and are using the proceeds to buy cars and houses. But wealth effect or not if the value of your pile of stocks is down by 20 percent or thirty percent then you can not buy the same house or car. Actually, I would not be at all surprized if a lot of home sales did not start dropping out of escrow due to the inability to get the loans put on the houses to buy stocks cleaned up with stock prices down so much Jack > >- > > Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 12:03:31 -0700 From: Liberty or Death Subject: Marines Practicing... My apologies if y'all have already seen this; I've been gone for a few days and haven't read all my email yet. But I just knew you'd want to know... - ------- Maryland Sheriff Opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House Confiscation Exercises Republic Radio Network Intercept Fax Report Sept. 1, 1998 Robert G. 'Bob' Wheaton Message: Ref: Shortwave Radio Intercept from Republic Radio Network, Intelligence Report, with John Stadtmueller(?) on WWCR 5.070 MHS, 19:10 CDST, 9-01-98. Subj: Maryland Sheriff opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House weapons confiscation training set for Thursday, 3 Sept., at Hebron, Maryland. Sheriff Nelms, of Wicomico County, Maryland, in conversation by phone with Stadtmueller(?) today, expressed grave concerns over a planned U.S.M.C. Training Op this coming Thursday, in which 50-58 Marines will "invade" the small town of Hebron, Marland, for more "Anti-terrorist" training, ostensibly a house-to-house weapons confiscation search and seizure. Sheriff Nelms has vowed to halt the military operation in his county if it involves such a house-to-house weapons seizure operation -- training or real. Hebron is a small town of approximately 665 residents, 10 miles N.W. of Salisbury, the Wicomico County seat. It was reported Salisbury city officials had rejected the U.S.M.C. plan for ops in their city. However, Hebron has no police department and only a local mayor who apparently succumbed to promised monitary asssistance for his community and authorized the U.S.M.C.'s planned "Special Operations" training in the belief it's a patriotic endeavor and necessary for our safety in world hyped up over terrorism. Pray for both Sehriff Nelms and Hebron's mayor. We need some divine intervention for different reasons! Posted by: Eastbound (wallace@gilanet.com) * 09/02/98 02:14:09 EDT To: Eastbound This is immensely disturbing! I am a Korean war jarhead vet who spent 5 years in the Corps. I understand the degree to which the Army and Navy have become worldwide jokes, but to think that even the Commandant of The Corps has turned into one of those fascist- supporting thugs nearly brings me to tears. Hearing about these kinds of excersizes by the Corps in other states didn't really sink in, but now that it is happening here in MD it surely does. Until that treasonous fascist pig was elected into the WH, Marines had one and only one job. That was to kill enemies of the U.S efficiently. Not to act as clintonista brown-shirts in citizen- suppression excersizes. We now know who the clintonistas think are the enemies of the U.S. If we (the Republic) have lost the Marine Corps, we have lost it all. My Father and Grandfather, both ex-marines as well, must be turning over in their graves. God help us all! From: SuperLuminal - - Monte - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the sea roar and its fulness, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord. For He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with equity. - Psalm 98 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Sep 98 12:28:32 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: International Conservative Group (fwd) Looks like one to keep an eye on, though I think they should change, "DEMOCRACY", to, "REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT", which many, "Democracies", are but not all. We all know the weaknesses of, "DEMOCRACY", the members thereof becoming a, "Tyranny of the Majority", and voting themselves Public Largesse etc. Representative Governments have their weaknesses, too, but not so ones that are so blatent or hard to Legally combat. On Sep 3, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Looks good to me. Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ "The hard-core Clinton supporters who consider Clinton's dishonesty irrelevant to the enactment of their agenda, are themselves dishonest people -- and their agenda is built on that dishonesty. It is not merely a means to an end to them, it is the heart and soul of what they believe, and the source of nearly all our troubles today." - -----Original Message----- From: David L. Williams To: Bonnie Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 8:25 AM Subject: International Conservative Group >Here is an interesting site on the internet. It is the International >Conservative group, an organization that is trying to pull all >conservatives around the world together to share experiences and >discuss our common foe, socialism. This site can be found at >http://www.come.to/icg Please consider joining this group. >The statement below is a presentation of the EUROPEAN YOUNG >CONSERVATIVES >group and one that I think that we all could agree with......David > >1. THE NINE PILLARS OF CONSERVATISM >The European Young Conservatives shall have as its objective to >further the values and principles of Conservatism within the nations >of Europe and within international organisations. It understands >Conservatism to be built >upon the following pillars:- > >NATIONHOOD > >Representative democracy can only function when people feel enough in >common, one with another, to accept common government and laws. Every >nation should be free to form an independent and self-governing state. >The borders of a state should reflect as closely as possible the >wishes of the people living in the territory. The imposition of >supranational structures which are sovereign over their constituent >states, is both undemocratic and impractical. International >co-operation should rest upon free collaboration among independent >countries, not upon supranational institutions. > >DEMOCRACY > >Truly accountable democracy will flourish best in a pluralist civic >society in which decisions are made as closely as possible to those >affected by them. Power should be dispersed, both among the different >branches of government and among the various non-governmental organs >which are essential in a healthy society. Government should >acknowledge the important role played by non-governmental institutions >and refrain from acting in areas where government intervention is not >necessary. > >LIBERTY > >Individuals should be free, under the law, to act as they wish without >limiting the freedom of those around them. The freedoms which are >guaranteed must include: freedom of movement within one's country and >in leaving or re-entering it; freedom of religion and worship; freedom >of speech and publication; freedom of assembly and association; >freedom to join, or not to join a trade union or employers' >association; freedom to pursue any lawful trade or profession without >interference. Personal liberty also includes the right to own and >convey property, free from unnecessary or confiscatory taxation. >Individuals must be free to dispose as they wish of their labour and >their possessions. > >THE RULE OF LAW > >Freedom and justice in any society rely upon the firm maintenance of >the rule of law. Equality of access to and treatment before the law >must be maintained, and the law must be enforced by an independent >judiciary. The requirements of the written law should never be set >aside in the name of national interest or popular opinion. > >PROPERTY > >That which nobody owns, nobody will care for. Individuals must be free >to retain or transfer ownership without interference. Taxation should >be used only as a means of raising the revenues for government to >perform its necessary functions; it should not be used as a means of >social engineering. Wherever possible, private ownership should be >preferred to state ownership. > >TRADITION > >Justice and order in any society are founded in shared values and >customs. No society can ignore the inherited wisdom of former >generations. A country should accept and cherish its traditions, >whether secular or religious in origin. >Each generation should be aware of its debt to those who have gone >before and its duty to those who will come after. > >FAMILY > >The family is the cornerstone or society. It is the unit in which >basic values and moral standards should be taught. Government should >not seek to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed at >family level, nor should it intervene to subsidise those who reject >the traditional family structure. > >THE FREE MARKET > >A free market, without qualifying adjectives, means absolutely free >trade in goods, services and capital. Not only is a free market the >most effective way to marshal a society's resources, but it is the >only way to safeguard individual liberty. Restrictions of the right to >trade freely are therefore wrong on both practical and moral grounds. >The best way to maximise the prosperity of the world is to extend free >commerce to a global level. > >MORALITY > >Political structures should be based upon accepted standards of right >and wrong. At their most fundamental, these standards comprise respect >for life, truth and property. They are common to all religions and >moral philosophies in which civilisation is rooted. They are universal >and inflexible, and social order cannot exist without them. They >should be reflected in the legal and political institutions of the >state, and encouraged among citizens. > >Adopted by:- >THE 7TH EXECUTIVE MEETING OF E.Y.C., LISBON, PORTUGAL DATED THIS >TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1995 > >Ratified by:- >THE 3RD ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING OF E.Y.C., COPENHAGEN, DENMARK DATED >THIS EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995 > >EUROPEAN YOUNG CONSERVATIVES [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 98 10:20:56 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: What are 'high crimes and misdemeanors"? (fwd) On Sep 4, Mike Riddle wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] What are "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Ann Coulter drops a hint: Clinton has committed them. High Time by: Ann Coulter (This article appears in the September 14 issue of National Review.) NOW that Bill "That-Allegation-Is-False" Clinton has admitted that he is a creep and a liar, the nation is anxiously waiting to see if he also has committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors." The day after President Clinton admitted that his finger-wagging, eye-squinting assurance in January ("I did not have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky") was not quite accurate, the presidential flacks who had been shouting "allegedly, allegedly" for seven months are trying a new defense. On August 18, official Dissembler for the President Lanny Davis announced on Crossfire that "lying is not a high crime and misdemeanor." Even Sen. Orrin Hatch indicated that any impeachment hearings would be limited to "obstruction of justice" and other "serious felonies." Those, he said, "are high crimes." No, actually, those are "crimes." The "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which the President -- or any civil officer of the United States -- is to be impeached have nothing to do with the criminal law. There is, in fact, no such thing as a "high crime" or "high misdemeanor" in the criminal codes. For more than six hundred years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has referred exclusively to conduct requiring impeachment. Though any serious felony will do, impeachment will not result in a prison sentence or beheading. An impeachment conviction in the Senate merely removes a statesman from his office of "honor, trust, or profit" with the United States. The criminal law is for personal punishment; impeachment is for keeping statesmen virtuous. Some history: The Framers borrowed the phrase from Britain, where it was first used in connection with an impeachment in 1380. There were several instances of its use during the colonial period: in 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of making uncivil addresses to a woman; in 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the King's Bench, was impeached on account of "his frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries," bringing "the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom"; in 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the King's Council, was impeached for procuring an office for someone "known to be a person of ill fame and reputation." The list goes on. Notably, none of these are crimes -- or even misdemeanors -- under the criminal law. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his great Commentaries on the Constitution, it is not only "crimes of a strictly legal character" that are impeachable offenses, but also political offenses, growing out of "personal misconduct . . . so various" that they "must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty." So, a "high misdemeanor" refers not, as it is commonly construed, to a criminal offense just short of a felony, but to simple misbehavior -- bad demeanor, if you will. As the Rodino Report during the Watergate investigation explained, "From the comments of the Framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal-power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly." Instead, impeachment has always been viewed as -- among other things -- a guarantee of the moral behavior of public officials. In the course of prosecuting one of the greatest impeachment trials in Anglo - American history -- that of Warren Hastings -- Edmund Burke said: "Other constitutions are satisfied with making good subjects; [impeachment] is a security for good governors." Burke meant "good" in the moral sense: "it is by this tribunal that statesmen [are tried] not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." It is exactly this understanding of impeachment that underlies the phrase used in Article I of the Constitution. James Madison said the "first aim" of the Constitution was to ensure that men with the "most virtue" would become the nation's rulers. The Constitution's impeachment power was for "keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." Or as Alexander Hamilton put it, "Men, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious to legal punishment." To be sure, there were differences in the practical application in Britain and the United States. Impeachments in Great Britain were often used as a weapon in the ongoing and turbulent power struggle between Parliament and the King. Consequently, impeachments tended to fall into ponderous, grand-sounding categories such as "abuse of power" or "encroachment on Parliament's prerogatives." These categories were expanded and reshuffled for use in a constitutional republic. Personal misconduct took on a larger role in impeachments, for example, and policy disputes were not areas of impeachable conduct. Having just fought a war to get rid of a king, the framers had "the perfidity of the chief magistrate" clearly in their sights when they included broad grounds for impeachment. They discussed the Constitution's impeachment power in terms of removing a President who "misbehaves" or "behave[s] amiss," as two of the delegates put it. Madison wrote that impeachment was meant to remove Presidents for "incapacity, negligence, or perfidity." What does such presidential misconduct look like? We, of course, have a recent template. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee adopted three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. The charges against him were neatly summarized near the bottom of the indictment: "In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." To say that Nixon was forced to resign, as so many commentators do, for acting in a manner "subversive of constitutional government" is meaningless without knowing what acts comprised that "subversion." Nixon's subversion consisted of: One presidential lie, one invocation of presidential privilege, and zero criminal offenses. One month after Nixon resigned, a prosecutor said of some of Nixon's alleged crimes, "none of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation by Mr. Nixon." As Nixon discovered, the President's obligations go far beyond the requirement that he not criminally obstruct justice. Nixon talked about political audits by the IRS, but no political audits were ever conducted (except of Nixon himself). Nixon invoked one privilege one time (and this was somewhat legitimate, since the Supreme Court did in fact recognize a brand new legal privilege). And Nixon permitted his subordinates to delay one investigation once -- for two weeks. What really did Nixon in was his long-running campaign of public deceit. The Watergate special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, said of Nixon's disgrace and resignation: "What sank him was his lying." Even President Nixon's most loyal defenders abandoned his cause when they found that he had lied. "The problem is not Watergate or the cover-up," Pat Buchanan told Julie Nixon. "It's that he hasn't been telling the truth to the American people. .. . . The tape makes it evident that he hasn't leveled with the country for probably eighteen months. And the President can't lead a country he has deliberately misled for a year and a half." What was true of Nixon, of course, is just as true of President Clinton. We at least know how Edmund Burke would vote. - -- Miss Coulter is a lawyer with the Center for Individual Rights. This article is adapted from her new book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors (Regnery). - --- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Sep 98 19:55:28 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Free Corn (fwd) On Sep 4, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] With thanks to David L. Williams of Goldstream Valley, Alaska for sending this to me: ============================= The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp Some years ago, about 1900, an old trapper from North Dakota hitched up some horses to his Studebaker wagon, packed a few possessions -- especially his traps -- and drove south. Several weeks later he stopped in a small town just north of the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. It was a Saturday morning -- a lazy day -- when he walked into the general store. Sitting around the pot-bellied stove were seven or eight of the town's local citizens. The traveler spoke. "Gentlemen, could you direct me to the Okefenokee Swamp?" Some of the oldtimers looked at him like he was crazy. "You must be a stranger in these parts," they said. "I am. I'm from North Dakota," said the stranger. "In the Okefenokee Swamp are thousands of wild hogs." one old man explained. "A man who goes into the swamp by himself asks to die!" He lifted up his leg. "I lost half my leg here, to the pigs of the swamp." Another old fellow said, "Look at the cuts on me; look at my arm bit off!" "Those pigs have been free since the Revolution, eating snakes and rooting out roots and fending for themselves for over a hundred years. They're wild and they're dangerous. You can't trap them. No man dare go into the swamp by himself." Every man nodded his head in agreement. The old trapper said, "Thank you so much for the warning. Now could you direct me to the swamp?" They said, "Well, yeah, it's due south -- straight down the road." But they begged the stranger not to go, because they knew he'd meet a terrible fate. He said, "Sell me ten sacks of corn, and help me load it in the wagon." And they did. Then the old trapper bid them farewell and drove on down the road. The townsfolk thought they'd never see him again. Two weeks later the man came back. He pulled up to the general store, got down off the wagon, walked in and bought ten more sacks of corn. After loading it up he went back down the road toward the swamp. Two weeks later he returned and again bought ten sacks of corn. This went on for a month. And then two months, and three. Every week or two the old trapper would come into town on a Saturday morning, load up ten sacks of corn, and drive off south into the swamp. The stranger soon became a legend in the little village and the subject of much speculation. People wondered what kind of devil had possessed this man, that he could go into the Okefenokee by himself and not be consumed by the wild and free hogs. One morning the man came into town as usual. Everyone thought he wanted more corn. He got off the wagon and went into the store where the usual group of men were gathered around the stove. He took off his gloves. "Gentlemen," he said, "I need to hire about ten or fifteen wagons. I need twenty or thirty men." "I have six thousand hogs out in the swamp, penned up, and they're all hungry. I've got to get them to market right away." "You've WHAT in the swamp?" asked the storekeeper, incredulously. "I have six thousand hogs penned up. They haven't eaten for two or three days, and they'll starve if I don't get back there to feed and take care of them." One of the oldtimers said, "You mean you've captured the wild hogs of the Okefenokee?" "That's right." "How did you do that? What did you do?" the men urged, breathlessly. One of them exclaimed, "But I lost my arm!" "I lost my brother!" cried another. "I lost my leg to those wild boars!" chimed a third. The trapper said, "Well, the first week I went in there they were wild all right." "They hid in the undergrowth and wouldn't come out. I dared not get off the wagon." "So I spread corn along behind the wagon. Every day I'd spread a sack of corn." "The old pigs would have nothing to do with it." "But the younger pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn than it was to root out roots and catch snakes. So the very young began to eat the corn first." "I did this every day. Pretty soon, even the old pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn." "After all, they were all free; they were not penned up. They could run off in any direction they wanted at any time." "The next thing was to get them used to eating in the same place all the time. So I selected a clearing, and I started putting the corn in the clearing." "At first they wouldn't come to the clearing. It was too far. It was too open. It was a nuisance to them." "But the very young decided that it was easier to take the corn in the clearing than it was to root out roots and catch their own snakes. And not long thereafter, the older pigs also decided that it was easier to come to the clearing every day." "And so the pigs learned to come to the clearing every day to get their free corn." "They could still subsidize their diet with roots and snakes and whatever else they wanted. After all, they were all free. They could run in any direction at any time. There were no bounds upon them." "The next step was to get them used to fence posts." "So I put fence posts all the way around the clearing. I put them in the underbrush so that they wouldn't get suspicious or upset." "After all, they were just sticks sticking up out of the ground, like the trees and the brush. The corn was there every day. It was easy to walk in between the posts, get the corn, and walk back out." "This went on for a week or two. Shortly they became very used to walking into the clearing, getting the free corn, and walking back out through the fence posts." "The next step was to put one rail down at the bottom. I also left a few openings, so that the older, fatter pigs could walk through the openings and the younger pigs could easily jump over just one rail." "After all, it was no real threat to their freedom or independence. They could always jump over the rail and flee in any direction at any time." "Now I decided that I wouldn't feed them every day. I began to feed them every other day." "On the days I didn't feed them the pigs still gathered in the clearing. They squealed, and they grunted, and they begged and pleaded with me to feed them." "But I only fed them every other day. And I put a second rail around the posts." "Now the pigs became more and more desperate for food. Because now they were no longer used to going out and digging their own roots and finding their own food. They now needed me. They needed my corn every other day." "So I trained them that I would feed them every day if they came in through a gate. And I put up a third rail around the fence." "But it was still no great threat to their freedom, because there were several gates and they could run in and out at will." "Finally I put up the fourth rail." "Then I closed all the gates but one, and I fed them very, very well." "Yesterday I closed the last gate. And today I need you to help me take these pigs to market." - -- end of story -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- The price of free corn The allegory of the pigs has a serious moral lesson. This story is about federal money being used to bait, trap and enslave a once free and independent people. Federal welfare, in its myriad forms, has reduced not only individuals to a state of dependency. State and local governments are also on the fast track to elimination, due to their functions being subverted by the command and control structures of federal "revenue sharing" programs. Please copy this flyer and send it to all your state and local elected leaders and other concerned citizens. Tell them: "Just say NO to federal corn." The bacon you save may be your own. ============================= Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ [------------------------- 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 #181 *************************