From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #187 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Tuesday, September 29 1998 Volume 02 : Number 187 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 22:52:29 -0700 From: "Chuck Norgaard" Subject: Fw: Special: THE VIETNAM WAR WON'T GO AWAY Iv'e read somewhere if we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything and it seems as though many of us are when it comes to Clinton. - ---------- > From: admin@hackworth.com > To: Recipient list suppressed > Subject: Special: THE VIETNAM WAR WON'T GO AWAY > Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 3:55 PM > > THE VIETNAM WAR WON'T GO AWAY > > Here is a powerful letter re: Agent Orange. When I visited Vietnam in > 1994, I saw anecdotal evidence of the effects of American use of Dioxin. > The Viets have tons of data, but unfortunately it has not been > scientifically gathered or correlated, and thus ain't much good when it > comes to being a legal exhibit A. > > Harris' letter really grabbed me. If it hits you the same way, you might > ask your congressperson, and whatever veteran's group you belong to, just > what the hell they're doing about this. > > HACK > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The Honorable James Hansen > 2466 Rayburn House Office Building > Washington, DC 20515 > > Dear Congressman Hansen: > > I was killed in 1971 by the United States Government! I just didn't know > it until 1998, when I discovered that I had lung cancer. Unlike President > Clinton, I did inhale. Unfortunately for me, it was not marijuana I > inhaled; it was the deadly chemical Agent Orange. As lung cancer was > diagnosed, my doctors kept asking me if I smoked. They were very surprised > when I said no. I started doing research on the Internet to discover > alternative causes for my disease. I soon discovered "Agent Orange" and > "Cancer" were two words that went together. I determined the following: > > 1. Studies have been done on the relationship between Agent Orange and > disease. Nine diseases are presumed by the VA to be related to exposure to > Agent Orange and other herbicides. Lung cancer is one of the diseases. > > 2. I spent my first six months in Vietnam at Quang Tri, which was one of > the most concentrated spraying areas in Vietnam. > > 3. I am just one of many who are going to die prematurely, and have to > also endure the pain of loved ones who have to face a much less certain > future. As I read the many stories of people in similar situations, I wept. > The way my brothers in battle and their families have been treated is a > national disgrace. > > As I went through test after test, I was disheartened, as each test result > had an unfavorable outcome. My cancer has progressed to the final stage, > stage IV. I would have had a much better chance of survival had the cancer > been detected earlier. > > The government had an obligation to make me aware of the risks of cancer > that were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. I was never warned. Uncle Sam > was certainly able to find me when I was drafted! The fact that the > government has the knowledge of the risks of Agent Orange, and my life is > in jeopardy because the information was not provided to me, is > unforgivable. Death will be inevitable for the many who remain uninformed. > I cannot understand the irresponsibility! > > My situation was unnecessary, and could have been prevented by what > appears to be an indifferent government. If detected early, my cancer could > have been cured with surgery. > > In my opinion, Vietnam veterans have been short changed by the media > leading to an incorrect perception by the public. The combatants in World > War II were portrayed in movies as patriotic, brave, heroes of the nation. > Actors portraying the WWII participants were people like John Wayne, > Charlton Heston, and the like. In comparison, the Vietnam combatants were > portrayed as being psychotic, complicated, dangerous, near criminals. The > characters representing the Vietnam soldiers were often unknown actors who > didn't make it to the end of the film because they were killed while doing > a drug deal or robbing a bank. Would you want your daughter to marry Rambo? > No one welcomed us home. The Vietnam vet is often blamed for the unpopular > war. A vast majority of the veterans that I served with did not want to be > involved in the war. For the most part, our sacrifice and service has never > been truly recognized. It appears that many people, including our own > government, would just like us to disappear. > > This stereotype of the Vietnam vet is wrong. Most of the men that I served > with were honorable, patriotic, and very confused about the overall purpose > of the war. We trusted our leaders to do the right thing. We did not run to > Canada to avoid service. If the war was wrong, blame the leaders, not the > soldiers who acted with integrity and the best of intentions. It is past > time that the general public know this about the men that served. > > I have heard a great deal in recent months about the evils of the > cigarette manufacturers. Many ideas have been presented as to placing heavy > taxes on cigarettes, and placing heavy fines on the manufactures of > cigarettes, even though cigarette smokers have been advised for many years > by the Surgeon General that smoking may be hazardous to one's health. The > Government should be held at least to the same standard imposed on the > cigarette manufacturers, as their "consumers" were acting out of duty to > their country, rather than out of pursuit of personal pleasure. The United > States Government, by dumping millions of gallons of poison on the troops, > and not notifying us of the health hazards, has a much greater liability > and responsibility to those of us who were poisoned. > > Here are a few of the ways that I will be effected by Agent Orange: > > 1. I am going to miss about twenty years with my wife Karen, daughter > Angela, son Steven, and other loved ones. > > 2. Cancer is not the easiest way out of this life. > > 3. I am the primary breadwinner for our family. My family will have to > figure out how to come up with the $1,500,000 that I would have earned over > the next twenty years. > > 4. Karen has only a high school diploma, and suffers from constant > migraine headaches. The family will probably be forced to move, and will > have a very difficult time making it financially. > > 5. Karen has resigned from her job to take care of me. We will have > medical bills and her loss of income to deal with. > > 6. There are many things in our marriage partnership that I do that Karen > does not know how to do. > > It is time for the government to take responsibility for their actions in > a reasonable way. Here are some suggestions: > > 1. Notify all Vietnam veterans in writing about the potential danger of > Agent Orange. Many lives are at stake! > > 2. Aggressively get public service announcements in the media to inform > those affected. > > 3. Process VA claims within 30 days of submission, and provide benefits > from the start of the illness, not the date the claim form was submitted. I > have been told by the VA that they are not sure if I will be reimbursed for > my medical costs, which are substantial. Eliminate the technicalities in > the law. > > 4. Provide free cancer screening and treatment for Vietnam vets at the > location of their choice. This could be done through the Medicare Program, > by providing a special class of Medicare coverage for veterans that covers > specific illnesses, and requires no deductible or co-pays. > > 5. Provide free life insurance coverage for Agent Orange related deaths. > > 6. Provide fair compensation to survivors, that would insure that they > would not suffer financially from their present life style. The > compensation should cover at least lost wages over the average life > expectancy of American citizens. > > 7. Add the names of those lost to Agent Orange to "The Wall" and properly > recognize them as casualties of war. > > 8. Fund the above items, by taxing companies that produce goods that cause > cancer, such as cigarette companies and companies that produce chemicals > like Agent Orange. > > 9. Treat veterans' claims expediently with compassion, concern, and > competence. > > Unless the veterans are truly taken care of, the draft will never work > again. My situation is not unusual. > > Sincerely > > Lynn N. Harris - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 23:06:00 -0700 From: "Chuck Norgaard" Subject: Fw: State Legislators Your state pol's need this info........Chuck from Battle Ground Wash, & Battle Ground korea 24 inf. Div. Death to the NWO. - ---------- > From: Committee to Restore the Constitution > To: Recipient List Suppressed:; > Subject: State Legislators > Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 3:30 PM > > STATE LEGISLATORS: REPOSITORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS * - Part 1 > > THE STATE LEGISLATORS > > If we define our terms and analyze just what the trouble is in the United > States with regard to restoring Constitutional Government we can see a > number of things. First of all, what we sometimes decry as supposed acts > are not acts at all, they are the attempted acts of special agents created > by the Constitution. There were three such agencies created in the first > three Articles of the Constitution; Number One dealing with the Congress; > Number Two dealing with the Executive Branch; and Number Three dealing with > the Courts; all of them special agencies, having limited powers. > > Therefore, these agencies have to look to that instrument and to that > instrument alone, for a specific enumeration of their powers. But somethng > has gone wrong, and we see that our State Legislators say, "We don't think > that Federal Courts ought to tell us how to apportion our State > Legislatures. We think that it is horrible for the Federal Courts to > undertake such Judicial Legislation". They call it "judicial legislation" > when in fact these State Legislatures THEMSELVES are the ones who are to > blame. Whether they know it or not, the States are, in law, the principals, > and it is through the State Legislatures that the State speaks in its > highest sovereign capacity. Therefore, the State Legislatures have a > responsibility which they are not discharging, and if Federal Agents come > along to enforce some ruling that the Legislators don't like, it is not the > act of the Federal Agent which is changing the Constitution, it is the > INACTION of the State. It is the State's act, or failure to respond to this > challenge that is causing the degradation of our Constitutional system. > > DELEGATED POWERS > > It is very difficult sometimes to talk to Legislators who have been > psychologized into thinking that (1) all great and good things come from > that Mecca in the Eastern part of our country and (2) that the States > somehow form some sort of satrapies, or provinces, that are dependent upon > the Federal agencies for their very existence. Indeed, even the term > 'States Rights' is something of a misnomer because the issue isn't a > question of States Rights. In using that term, we tend to think that the > States have certain Rights and if the Federal agencies will allow it, then > maybe the States can exercise those Rights. That isn't the case at all. > > The question is, what powers were DELEGATED to these special agencies. The > next succeeding question, of course, is what the State must do to correct > an excess of its agent. Many say, that if the State enforces the > Constitution it would be putting the Congress or the President or the > Supreme Court or some other Federal agency at defiance and therefore we > would end up with anarchy. But, it wasn't anarchy when Marshall in MARBURY > v. MADISON decided that the Congress had no authority to enact the Statute > that the Congress claimed to enact. Nor is it anarchy to enforce any of the > provisions of the Constitution. Quite the contrary, we are allowing > ourselves to fall into a condition of uncontrolled and uncontrollable > anarchy by our FAILURE to enforce the provisions of the United State > Constitution. > > One of our jobs is to get our State Legislators to lose their inferiority > complex. They have the idea that because a Federal Representative gets a > lot more money than a State Legislator does, that therefore the Congressman > has more authority. And, lawyers frequently share the view that the name > 'Supreme Court of the United States' means that this is the Court to which > all good legal beagles must turn and point to get the next signal as to > what new 'Statute' shall be conjured up by a majority of that group. This > is not the law, and it's unfortunate that lawyers are ham ignorant of the > principles upon which our Constitution was founded. It is not a question of > turning to the Supreme Court to find out what to do, because what the > Supreme Court shall do under the Constitution is what the Constitution says > it shall do. To get any change in their Commissions all Federal agencies > must reapply to their principals, the STATES. Merely because we have an > organization called the Supreme Court of the United States does not detract > from the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is probably > (leaving out, let's say, our J.P. Courts) the Court of least jurisdiction > of any that we're likely to come in contact with. You take a case into the > Federal System and you have to show specifically how you get jurisdiction > to attach to that case. You have to allege a jurisdictional amount; you > have to make allegations of citizenship to show that it comes within the > specifically limited areas that the Federal Courts have any authority > whatever to act in. And, the Supreme Court of the United States is further > limited to act only with "such exceptions, and under such regulations as > the Congress shall make". The State Court is not so limited. Neither is a > State Legislature so limited. > > CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS > > The State Legislature can do anything it chooses, barring interdiction by > either the Federal or the State Constitutions. On the contrary, the Federal > Legislature may lawfully enact only in those specific areas where they are > specifically given authority. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the > Constitution are sometimes referred to as 'mere surplusage' - they add > nothing (they don 't hurt anything either). They were put in to make > abundantly clear a limitation that was already there in a manner in which > the Constitution was formed - by making a special agency in the first > place. The Constitution was clear that it was only those powers that were > delegated that could be exercised by those agencies, and putting in > specific Amendments spelling that out in express terms really adds nothing. > However, it does make it more difficult for usupers to deny that those > limitations are there. > > Usurpation is a bi-lateral act. It does not consist alone of an attempt to > exercise power by someone having no authority to exercise that power. It > consists of that in the first instance (someone trying to exercise the > power who has no authority to do so). But to complete that act, usurpation > consists of the person or the entity having lawful authority to exercise > that power, surrendering it or acquiescing in the exercise of that power by > the usurper. > > TO BE CONTINUED > ______________________________________ > > * Extract from an address, "State Action to Restore the Constitution", by > T. David Horton, Attorney, Counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution. > Mr Horton, Post Office Box 2107, Carson City, Nevada, 89702, is a member > District of Columbia, Virginia and Nevada Bar; member US 9th Circuit Court > of Appeals, DC; expert witness before numerous Congressional Committees in > matters pertaining to Constitutional inquiries; Graduate Ohio State > University, American University, Washington, DC, Catholic University, > Washington, DC, and Hamilton College, New York. > ____________________________________________________________________________ __ > > Don't stand idle while others, for lack of knowledge, watch in helpless > despair, confiscation of their money and property by illegal stratagems of > a central government in Washington. > > Participate in the campaign to enforce basic principles originally embodied > in the Constitution of the United States. > > Begin your mission by sending your name and address. Ask for "Plan of > Operations" to oust regional government controls over your life, your > family and your community. Enclose $1.00 for postage. > > Packet you will receive includes 6-page 'operations manual' with list of > legal documents indicting the men and the system engaged in a conspiracy to > overthrow the Constitution and erect a United Nations 'new world order' on > ruins of the Republic. > > Shows you how to harness powers of County and State governments to your > mission and 'criminalize' regional government operations in your State. > > Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, Director > COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION, Inc. > Post Office Box 986 Fort Collins, Colorado USA 80522 > Website: http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc > Subject: "The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution" > - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:15:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Ltr. to Congress on Waco/Impeachment (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 14:17:54 -0400 From: Carol Moore To: Waco List from Subject: Ltr. to Congress on Waco/Impeachment While I'm not optimistic that Congress will open any of these issues relevant to Bill Clinton's crimes against citizens and the Constitution, I think we have to keep telling Congress that the People know the truth, even if Congress isn't willing to deal with it. Please feel free to write/email/call your Congressional rep--especially if she/he is on the Judiciary Committee--and any other Congress reps you think might listen. Carol Moore in D.C. - ----------------------------------------- EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ON WACO Distributed by the Committee for Waco Justice Representative Bill McCollum September 22, 1998 House of Representatives Washington, D.C. Dear Representative McCollum: Mr. Bill Buckell sent me a copy of your July 17, 1998 letter to him regarding whether an independent counsel is justified in the Waco matter. You write, in part: "As discussed in House Report 104-749, the Subcommittee on Crime found that the President had no decision- making role in the activities of federal law enforcement officials toward the Davidians." As author of the book, The Davidian Massacre, and an ongoing "Waco" researcher, I would like to point out important evidence not only of decision-making by President Bill Clinton, but of outright obstruction of justiceBevidence that your committee overlooked or did not obtain for the 1995 House Waco hearings. (Hearings, which, you know so well, the White House did its best to disrupt!) I urge the whole House Judiciary Committee to look into these matters again or a-new in any impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. It would be absurd if ClintonBan obvious sexual predator--escaped impeachment after in depth questioning on sex charges, but was never asked about his complicity in mass murder!! 1. Evidence of President Clinton's possible foreknowledge of the initial BATF raid and/or cooperation with BATF obstruction of justice. One of the chief planners of the February 28, 1993 BATF raid on the Branch Davidians was Bill Clinton's personal friend William Buford, Special Agent in Charge of Little Rock BATF. According to a March 9, 1993, Wall Street Journal article, on March 1, the day after the February 28 raid, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman visited the injured Buford in a Texas hospital. He reported back to Clinton about his visit on March 3. Committee members never asked Waco hearing witnesses Altman or Buford about what they discussed with each other or with President Clinton. Did President Bill Clinton have foreknowledge of, or involvement in, the Waco raid which has not been revealed? Did Buford make it clear to Clinton, through Altman or in some other way, that he wanted the Justice Department to obstruct evidence of BATF agents' crimes? (Specifically, illegal gunfire from the ground and helicopters that killed six Davidians and wounded several others.) If so, what kind of leverage did Arkansas resident Buford use to ensure Clinton complied with his demands? 2. Webster Hubbell-related evidence of Clinton's involvement in Waco decision-making and obstruction of justice. Confidential memoranda and handwritten notes presented during the 1995 House Waco hearings revealed that the Treasury Department, under pressure from the Justice Department and then-Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, halted its post-February 28 shooting review investigation because agents' stories "did not add up." The Justice Department protested that the interviews were generating "exculpatory" material that could help the Davidian defendants at trial. The documents show that Webster Hubbell even threatened to go to his good friend President Bill Clinton if the Treasury Department did not cooperate in the suppression of such exculpatory evidence. Your Committee never asked witness Webster Hubbell about his role in squelching these interviews. The Committee also took Hubbell's word that during the siege he had only one conversation with his golfing partner Bill Clinton about Waco. And even though Hubbell promised to produce his personal "Waco files" to Congress, I did not see them in your final published transcripts of the hearing. 3. Evidence that on April 19th Clinton and Reno discussed the in-progress FBI tank attack. On April 19, 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno and Webster Hubbell sat in the FBI Operations Center in Washington, D.C. for four hours watching the tank attack on Mount Carmel. Reno mentioned during the April 28, 1993 house hearings that she talked to Clinton at 11:00 a.m. on April 19th, just before she left the Operations Center. Incredibly, Congress never asked her then, or during 1995 hearings, about the content of this conversation. Did Clinton tell her to press on with the attack? What instructions did he give her? Did he tell her to leave Webster Hubbell in charge? Was there any discussion of the evidence of BATF crimes that FBI tanks were destroying as they smashed apart the Davidians' home, Mount Carmel? The Committee took Reno's word when she said she was mistaken in asserting originally that Clinton had spoken to Hubbell on April 19th about the FBI assault. Might Hubbell have spoken to Clinton right after Reno spoke with him by phone at 11:00 a.m.? Reno did leave Hubbell in charge of the Operations Center during the remainder of the attack, but Committee members never asked either about Hubbell's role that day. 4 Evidence the White House suppressed or destroyed evidence about Vince Foster's involvement in--and distress over--Waco. An FBI report on White House counsel Vince Foster's suicide revealed that his wife, Lisa, told the FBI that Foster felt responsible for the deaths of the Davidians. During the House Waco hearings the White House released Foster's AWaco file. The White House asserted it included only one memorandum about a video tape. However, Foster's former executive assistant, Deborah Gorham, told the Senate Banking Committee in June, 1997, that Foster kept a file on the Waco incident locked in an office cabinet. Congress should ask her if it contained more than that one memorandum previously released to Congress. Foster intern Tom Castleton told the Senate committee that Foster had been working on a letter regarding Waco the day of his death. However, no such letter was presented to the House Waco hearing investigators. 5. Congress has never sought evidence from White House staff or attorneys. Former White House employee Linda Tripp was also a Foster aide. What could she, or Deborah Gorman, Tom Castleton, or other staffers, or White House attorneys, tell Congress and the American people about the White House's involvement decision-making and obstruction of justice regarding Waco? Congress has questioned White House staffers and attorneys on far lesser matters than the mass killing of civilians and the destruction of evidence of those killings. Why hasn't it done so in the far more important matter of the Waco massacre? President Clinton's possible involvement in, and obstruction of justice regarding, the massacre of 82 civilians at Waco is a far more heinous crime than than lying under oath about his sexual predations. Many Americans believe Congress has ignored such evidence in order to protect federal agents from prosecution for negligent or intentional homicide. Millions of such Americans have seen the video "Waco: the Rules of Engagement" which presents evidence BATF agents shot from helicopters and FBI agents shot on Mount Carmel during the fire. (The full text of my book, The Davidian Massacre, plus four years of "Waco Updates" covering other new evidence, are available at my web page: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html) Congress already has discussed the possibility of imposing martial law should year 2000 computer problems prove sufficiently disruptive. Having seen federal agents slaughter 82 people because of allegations one individual had produced illegal weapons, Americans can only wonder how many civilians Congress will permit federal, state and local law enforcement to slaughter should they question or disobey martial law. Congress may have only fifteen more months to convince both law enforcement and citizens that it will permit no more "Wacos" in America. Carol Moore for Committee for Waco Justice 202-635-3739 202-797-9877 cc: Selected members of the House and Senate, the press and thousands of citizens via e-mail ====== FYI Members of the House Judiciary Committee Include: Republicans 1.Henry J. Hyde, IL, Chairman 2.F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., WI 3.Bill McCollum, FL 4.George W. Gekas, PA 5.Howard Coble, NC 6.Lamar S. Smith, TX 7.Elton Gallegly, C 8.Charles T. Canady, FL 9.Bob Inglis, SC 10.Bob Goodlatte, V 11.Stephen E. Buyer, IN 12.Ed Bryant, TN 13.Steve Chabot, OH 14.Bob Barr, GA 15.William L. Jenkins, TN 16.Asa Hutchinson, AR 17.Edward A. Pease, IN 18.Chris Cannon, UT 19.James E. Rogan, CA 20.Lindsey O. Graham, SC 21.Mary Bono, CA Democrats 1.John Conyers, Jr., MI 2.Barney Frank, MA 3.Charles E. Schumer, NY 4.Howard L. Berman, CA 5.Rick Boucher, VA 6.Jerrold Nadler, NY 7.Robert C. Scott, VA 8.Melvin L. Watt, NC 9.Zoe Lofgren, CA 10.Sheila Jackson-Lee, TX 11.Maxine Waters, CA 12.Martin T. Meehan, MA 13.William D. Delahunt, MA 14.Robert Wexler, FL 15.Steven R. Rothman, NJ 16.(empty) Tom Mooney, Chief Counsel House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515 225-3951 - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:00:58 -0700 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Fw: State Legislators Chuck Norgaard wrote: > > Patriots.......here's the real world.....keep your powder dry.....C. > Before condemning state legislatures you have to ask, "Who runs for state legislatures?" or more pertinent, "Who doesn't run for state legislatures?" The pertinent answer, and the real cause of the problem, is: "Guys like you and me, who know something about the Constitution, and CARE about protecting it, DON'T run for state office." We sit home and bitch on the internet, or call talk radio shows, or attend meetings of malcontents, but we leave the state legislature to coffee salesmen (Pennington), berry farmers (Boldt), school teachers (Carlson), do-gooder busy-body old women (Ogden) or men (Bauer), retired business men (Mielke), or religious zealots (Zarelli), all of whom have their own personal agenda, but none of whom know a damned thing about the Constitutional limits on federal government powers, and all of whom willingly roll over and play dead when someone tells them "The federal government won't let you do that." Every now and then we get a good one like Linda Smith or Don Benton, but for the most part, we leave the candidacies for state legislature to people who haven't done their homework on the constitution, and probably won't, while we sit home and bitch, and think about doing what we want done OUTSIDE the political process. No offense. Just wanted to place the blame where it belongs - on us and others like us - who'd rather see others assume the commitment to do what we should be doing ourselves - working within the political process to fix that foul but fixable system. Regards, Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:10:40 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: Wilson vetoes gun control bills Tuesday, September 29, 1998 Wilson Vetoes Package of Gun Control Bills By CARL INGRAM, Times Staff Writers SACRAMENTO--Denouncing it as a "cynical effort to con the public," Gov. Pete Wilson on Monday vetoed legislation aimed at strengthening California's ban on military-style assault weapons. In a series of unusually stinging veto messages, the governor asserted that tougher penalties on gun-wielding criminals--not the enactment of new controls on firearms--are a proven remedy to reduce crime. Supporters of the bill, which narrowly cleared the Legislature last month, argued that the election-year legislation needed to be enacted because California's existing assault-gun law is in jeopardy of being struck down by the courts. The veto was a severe reversal for police chiefs, educators, gun-control activists and others who argued that violence in California would be curbed by imposing new restrictions on the availability of firearms. "If California suffers another assault-weapon massacre, Gov. Wilson will be remembered for his failure to get these deadly weapons off the street," said Luis Tolley of Handgun Control Inc. In addition to rejecting the Democratic-dominated Legislature's efforts to toughen the existing ban on high-capacity, rapid-fire assault guns, the governor also vetoed two other gun control bills. One, designed to rid the state of so-called Saturday night special handguns, would have subjected pistols and revolvers to a series of safety tests before they could be sold. The second would have required gun dealers to offer trigger-locks or other "use limitation" devices for sale when they became commercially available. The governor also signed several relatively noncontroversial gun bills, including a measure that would require a second criminal background check on handgun purchasers who failed to pick up their firearms within 30 days. Wilson, an expert marksman while in the Marine Corps, directed his heaviest fire at the assault gun bill (AB 2560) by Assemblyman Don Perata (D-Alameda). The bill was designed to eliminate copycat versions of about 75 guns that were outlawed by make and model under California's landmark 1989 assault gun law. The law was enacted in the wake of a massacre at a Stockton schoolyard by a man wielding a legal AK-47 assault rifle. Five children were killed and 29 others and a teacher were wounded. In the past nine years, some manufacturers have produced new guns that are virtual replicas of the outlawed weapons, except for cosmetic changes. The Perata bill would have added to the existing law a series of new definitions on what constitutes an illegal assault gun, and would have limited to 19 the number of bullets a semiautomatic weapon could accept from a single magazine. Additionally, a semiautomatic rifle would qualify as an assault gun if it contained generic military characteristics such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip or folding stock. But Wilson said the Perata bill, strongly supported by Handgun Control Inc., mixed the issues of firing capacity and cosmetic appearance. As a result, he said, it "may be more susceptible to constitutional attack than the law it seeks to replace." Offering an analogy, the governor said: "If this bill's focus were high-speed sports cars, it would first declare them ‘chariots of death' and then criminalize possession of Ramblers equipped with racing stripes and wire wheels." Taking personal aim at Perata, who the governor claimed refused to work out a compromise, Wilson criticized the bill as a "cynical effort to con the public about what kind of legislation actually will protect" Californians against gun violence. Wilson cited as an example of effective crime control legislation the three-strikes sentencing bill he signed in 1994, as well as other measures that require longer sentences for criminals who use firearms. Such laws, he said, have contributed to the decline of crime in California in the past four years. "That's how to deal with gun violence," Wilson said. Perata, who pursued an uphill battle to win passage of his bill during an election year, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the governor's veto, calling it "inaccurate and way off base." Assuming that the appellate courts strike down the existing assault gun ban, Perata said, the retiring two-term governor "will leave this state with no assault weapon ban. When he arrived, we had one." The veto also drew criticism from others, including Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, the Democratic nominee for governor, who promised that if he is elected, he would sign such legislation. "It's unfortunate that [state Atty. Gen. and Republican gubernatorial nominee] Dan Lungren and Pete Wilson were AWOL on the effort to ban assault weapons," Davis said. Lungren, whom Davis has charged with weak enforcement of the current law, declined to comment on the veto. Lungren had said that he had no position on the Perata bill because he is defending the current law against legal challenge. Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles) said the Legislature had worked to "tone down" the assault-gun and other gun control bills to compromise with Republicans. But he charged that Wilson's veto reflected the GOP's viewpoint, which he called "out of step with the electorate." The veto was welcomed, however, by the National Rifle Assn., a steadfast opponent of controls on gun ownership, which had criticized the Perata bill and other measures as "flawed." "I think what the governor has recognized is that these types of gun control bills have nothing to do with crime control," said Steve Helsley, California lobbyist for the NRA. "These are what I would call political buffoonery." Wilson's veto of the handgun bill was the second time in two years that he had struck down a measure designed to stop the making of Saturday night specials. The latest measure (SB 1500), by Sen. Richard G. Polanco (D-Los Angeles), would have required pistols and revolvers to pass safety tests before consumers could purchase them. But Wilson said that an "infinitely greater risk" to the public are criminals with guns. Replied Polanco: "Pete Wilson chose the gun lobby over public safety." Wilson also vetoed the trigger-lock bill, authored by Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), arguing that it could allow local governments to enact ordinances that are more stringent than those allowed by state law. _ _ _ Times staff writers Mark Gladstone and Amy Pyle contributed to this report. Copyright Los Angeles Times Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 98 10:23:11 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AdvAM: "Get in Touch with Your Feelings!" (fwd) On Sep 28, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network (c) 1998 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ "GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR FEELINGS!" If you remember that refrain, which used to accompany advice to men that it was unhealthy for them to be less expressive emotionally than women, you probably are in better touch with your feelings than anyone who actually took the advice. What the therapists and feminist propagandists actually meant when they said men needed to "get in touch" with their feelings, was that men needed to be more emotion-oriented and less fact-oriented. Women have complained for generations about men who are "always so logical about everything," when women have been burdened by the stereotype -- now long since embraced by today's feminists -- of being more emotional and less logical. Women (we're told these days) regard the world as a network of relationships between people who impact other people's feelings and therefore have to be accountable for how those around them feel at any given moment. Men, on the other hand, were too inclined to analyze issues, including those in a relationship, and overlook their emotional impact. Well, the thing about relationships is, no matter what anyone may believe or want to believe, there is ALWAYS a strong partner and a weak partner. There is no such thing as a truly equal relationship -- no way, nohow. And in emotion-based relationships, in most cases the stronger partner is the one who is least susceptible to emotional manipulation, whether deliberate or unintentional. In most male-female relationships this has traditionally been the male, largely because men had learned over time -- probably in self-defense -- to withdraw from emotional situations rather than take part. Instinctively or otherwise, men used to understand that "wearing your heart on your sleeve" leaves you vulnerable to forces that could make you do things you would later regret. After all, a man who flies off the handle over an imagined insult is even today perfectly capable of getting himself killed. Better to be cool and make sure it's really worth getting angry over before submitting to raw emotion. There were (and are) men who actually understand the nature of emotion and its usefulness as a weapon, but in the old days manipulating others' feelings was frowned upon among men as being, well, unmanly. Today we have a President who shamelessly uses emotional manipulation and gets away with it. Having mastered the art in today's feminized America of establishing fast-food-style emotional relationships with everyone he encounters, he preys upon others' emotional vulnerability -- those most susceptible to him have "gotten in touch with their feelings" by losing or giving up the ability to analyze their feelings -- to make himself the dominant partner in each case. Where the weaker partner is a familiar television face, Clinton can then ensure that he or she vouches for him to the millions of Americans who will never have the opportunity to meet him face to face. Since television news is all about relationships (even in the '60s with "Uncle Walter," "the most trusted man in America"), the result is virtually indistinguishable from an actual direct relationship. This is how Bill Clinton has achieved his political success, and how he has consistently thwarted those of us who are impervious to his charms. It also explains how he can pigeonhole all of his skeptics as "Clinton-haters." After all, by seeing through him we've proven that we're analytical, logical throwbacks to an era in which a charlatan like him could never succeed in national politics, and so we must (and frankly, DO) oppose him and all he represents. The most depressing fact about Clinton's collective relationship with his supporters is that it's almost universally dysfunctional. Collectively his supporters are the political equivalent of Edith Bunker, the quintessential TV "doormat" -- only more so. Archie never treated Edith as badly as Bill treats his followers, and if he had even Edith would have called it quits. The Clintonista rank-and-file that keeps Bill Clinton's popularity propped up is a massive, many-faced battered spouse, always ready to give in to any ultimatum, always happy to take the poor, contrite son of a bitch back no matter what, until he finally destroys her or himself -- or both. The feminist fringe of the late 1990s hasn't repudiated or denounced Bill Clinton because it CAN'T. This is the ideal man they said years ago they wanted, one who was able to feel things openly, who could wear something resembling a heart on his sleeve and be okay with it. Bill Clinton could only have reached his present place in history because of the feminization of America's men over the last couple of decades, and he is the perfectly adapted man to exploit the present circumstances for his own purposes. He's like the pro-choice twentysomething of the 1970s who talked the "women's rights" talk with all the right inflections, when what he really wanted was promiscuous sex without fetal consequences. Indeed, Bill Clinton probably got a great many of his own jollies thanks to *Roe v. Wade,* but I digress. If we're ever to overcome this beast, we need to get in touch, not with "our feelings," but with the nature of emotion and the art of emotional manipulation. Not to practice it against others as Clinton does, but to figure out how to inoculate America against his manipulations so that we can emerge from this nightmare and restore some rationality, some logic, to our society. Manhood is a good thing, and ought not to be wasted on mere sexual depredation by the likes of Bill Clinton. - -30- September 28, 1998 ================================================================ **Visit the AdvAM/AdvAK archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/advance.htm The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. [------------------------- 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 #187 *************************