From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #191 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, October 14 1998 Volume 02 : Number 191 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:05:33 -0700 From: Jack Perrine Subject: Disarm the BATF [01] Disarm the BATF Joseph Farah Another day, another debacle for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. This time, the scene is not Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho, but Taft, California -- another hotbed of "anti-government activity." According to the federal government's own account, the BATF began an investigation into illegal firearms sales by people espousing anti-government rhetoric three or four years ago with an undercover agent allegedly making an illegal purchase of a .22-caliber pistol. It ended last week with one of the three targets of the federal government probe dead in a highly unusual -- and, yes, improbable - - - incident. The official story goes something like this: Two BATF agents, a Kern County sheriff's deputy and Sgt. Ed Whiting of the Taft Police Department attempted to take into custody on illegal firearms trafficking charges, Darryl Howell, a 45-year-old grandfather and owner of a surplus store that sold, among other things, guns and ammunition. A struggle between the BATF agents and Howell ensued. The cops say he broke away from them, lunged for a .45-caliber handgun, put it into his mouth and fired a single shot. Whiting, the story goes, had become temporarily distracted during the scuffle. When he heard the single shot, he instinctively aimed his gun at Howell and fired three more shots into his already, presumably, lifeless body. Now, if you believe that, I have an intercontinental ballistic missile I'd like to sell you. I'm not a cop, and I've never played one on TV. But I have reported on enough crime stories in my day to know when one stinks to high heaven. And this one smells like a cattle ranch on a windless, summer day in California's Central Valley. Let me see if I have this straight. Four cops, one "suspect." This wanted outlaw -- so dangerous he's been under scrutiny of federal law enforcement for nearly four years -- is confronted not in his home, not on his lunch break, not on his way to work or after he locks up, but during the workday in a store loaded with firearms. Even though he's not accused of being on PCP or any other drugs, he cannot be physically subdued by four officers. They are unable to persuade him to come along peacefully or handcuff him involuntarily. Instead, he is permitted by these highly trained law enforcement professionals to grab one of his guns. But they don't shoot him right away. Oh no. They allow him to pick up the handgun, bring it all the way up to his mouth and pull the trigger. Only then, we are told, does one of the officers, who wasn't paying attention, pump the desperado full of lead. Do these BATF clowns ever learn? Either these guys are Washington's answer to the Keystone Kops, or we have on the loose a cold, calculating, professional, Gestapo-like killing machine designed to root out dissidents exercising their Second Amendment rights and blow them away without the messiness of trials and due process. How many times does America need to see such tragedies before it wakes up and disarms these dangerous, out-of-control, gun-slinging hitmen? The inmates are running the asylum, folks. Beam me up. There is no allegation made by any of these cowboys that Howell or any others charged in a series of raids in the town of Taft last week had provided weapons to criminals or represented a threat to law- abiding citizens anywhere. In fact, I personally would have felt a lot safer in Taft last week, before Mr. Howell was "suicided" than I would today. I think most Americans would. Let's suspend our own cognitive skills and good judgment for a moment and pretend the cops' story is 100 percent accurate. Was the four-year investigation worth it? Was it a prudent investment of taxpayer dollars? Why aren't these law-enforcement heroes out investigating real crimes of violence against innocent victims, instead of conducting secretive sting operations designed to entrap people into violating inherently unconstitutional laws? But, you know what? Such talk can get you in trouble these days. One of the BATF agents responsible for this tragedy said one of Howell's friends had (gasp!) complained about a ban on "assault weapons" and the actions of President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. At the risk of inviting a similar assault on my home or business, let me pick up that cry: These are, indeed, some of the people who represent a real threat to our lives and liberty in America today. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:56:53 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Outrageous case of political persecution (Not!) Here is a view into the politics and personal beliefs of Maxine Waters. - ------------------------------ Political tidbits and other shenanigans from around the nation's capital By John McCaslin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Political persecution Putting the political persecution of President Clinton on the back burner for a moment, Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat and a key member of the House panel considering the impeachment of Mr. Clinton, got out her pen and wrote a two-page apology to Cuban President Fidel Castro. A copy was obtained by Inside the Beltway. First, though, some background. On May 2, 1973, Joanne Chesimard, a member of the Black Liberation Army, and two of her friends were stopped in their vehicle on the New Jersey Turnpike by state troopers James Harper and Werner Foerster. While being questioned, Chesimard and the driver opened fire with automatic pistols, striking Trooper Foerster twice in the chest and Trooper Harper in the shoulder. Then, grabbing Trooper Foerster's own weapon, an additional two bullets were fired execution style into the officer's head, killing him. Trooper Foerster left behind a wife and family. After a six-week trial, Chesimard was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in a New Jersey maximum-security prison. Until 1979, when she broke free after taking a guard and prison van driver hostage. She fled to Cuba and was granted "political asylum." Recently, residents of New Jersey expressed shock and outrage after seeing television interviews of Chesimard living freely in Cuba and portraying herself as a victim. Immediately, New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman requested federal assistance from Attorney General Janet Reno for her return. Congress, meanwhile, called on Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to do everything in her power to have the convicted murderer returned to the United States. Finally, on Sept. 14, Congress passed a resolution calling on the government of Cuba to extradite Chesimard so she can complete her life sentence. That said, Mrs. Waters, who also is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, just sent a letter to Mr. Castro saying she and other members of the caucus were "deceived" by Republicans and therefore "mistakenly" voted in favor of the resolution. Grounds for the deception? "Joanne Chesimard was the birth name of a political activist known to most members of the Congressional Black Caucus as Assata Shakur," Mrs. Waters says. "As evidence of their deceptive intent, the resolution did not mention Assata Shakur, but chose to only call her Joanne Chesimard." As for Mrs. Waters opposing the measure? "I support the right of all nations to grant political asylum to individuals fleeing political persecution," the congresswoman writes to the communist leader. "The United States grants political asylum to individuals from all over the world who successfully prove they are fleeing political persecution. Other sovereign nations have the same right, including the sovereign nation of Cuba." - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:52:43 -0600 From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: Disarm the BATF Sounds like another case of police-assisted suicide to me. At 08:05 AM 10/13/98 -0700, you wrote: >[01] >Disarm the BATF >Joseph Farah > > > Another day, another debacle for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco >and Firearms. > >This time, the scene is not Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho, but >Taft, California -- another hotbed of "anti-government activity." > >According to the federal government's own account, the BATF >began an investigation into illegal firearms sales by people espousing >anti-government rhetoric three or four years ago with an undercover >agent allegedly making an illegal purchase of a .22-caliber pistol. > >It ended last week with one of the three targets of the federal >government probe dead in a highly unusual -- and, yes, improbable - >- incident. > >The official story goes something like this: Two BATF agents, a >Kern County sheriff's deputy and Sgt. Ed Whiting of the Taft Police >Department attempted to take into custody on illegal firearms >trafficking charges, Darryl Howell, a 45-year-old grandfather and >owner of a surplus store that sold, among other things, guns and >ammunition. > >A struggle between the BATF agents and Howell ensued. The cops >say he broke away from them, lunged for a .45-caliber handgun, put >it into his mouth and fired a single shot. Whiting, the story goes, had >become temporarily distracted during the scuffle. When he heard >the single shot, he instinctively aimed his gun at Howell and fired >three more shots into his already, presumably, lifeless body. > >Now, if you believe that, I have an intercontinental ballistic missile >I'd like to sell you. > >I'm not a cop, and I've never played one on TV. But I have reported >on enough crime stories in my day to know when one stinks to high >heaven. And this one smells like a cattle ranch on a windless, >summer day in California's Central Valley. > >Let me see if I have this straight. Four cops, one "suspect." This >wanted outlaw -- so dangerous he's been under scrutiny of federal >law enforcement for nearly four years -- is confronted not in his >home, not on his lunch break, not on his way to work or after he >locks up, but during the workday in a store loaded with firearms. >Even though he's not accused of being on PCP or any other drugs, >he cannot be physically subdued by four officers. They are unable >to persuade him to come along peacefully or handcuff him >involuntarily. Instead, he is permitted by these highly trained law >enforcement professionals to grab one of his guns. But they don't >shoot him right away. Oh no. They allow him to pick up the >handgun, bring it all the way up to his mouth and pull the trigger. >Only then, we are told, does one of the officers, who wasn't paying >attention, pump the desperado full of lead. > >Do these BATF clowns ever learn? Either these guys are >Washington's answer to the Keystone Kops, or we have on the loose >a cold, calculating, professional, Gestapo-like killing machine >designed to root out dissidents exercising their Second Amendment >rights and blow them away without the messiness of trials and due >process. > >How many times does America need to see such tragedies before it >wakes up and disarms these dangerous, out-of-control, gun-slinging >hitmen? The inmates are running the asylum, folks. Beam me up. > >There is no allegation made by any of these cowboys that Howell or >any others charged in a series of raids in the town of Taft last week >had provided weapons to criminals or represented a threat to law- >abiding citizens anywhere. In fact, I personally would have felt a lot >safer in Taft last week, before Mr. Howell was "suicided" than I >would today. I think most Americans would. > >Let's suspend our own cognitive skills and good judgment for a >moment and pretend the cops' story is 100 percent accurate. Was >the four-year investigation worth it? Was it a prudent investment of >taxpayer dollars? Why aren't these law-enforcement heroes out >investigating real crimes of violence against innocent victims, instead >of conducting secretive sting operations designed to entrap people >into violating inherently unconstitutional laws? > >But, you know what? Such talk can get you in trouble these days. >One of the BATF agents responsible for this tragedy said one of >Howell's friends had (gasp!) complained about a ban on "assault >weapons" and the actions of President Clinton, Attorney General >Janet Reno and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. > >At the risk of inviting a similar assault on my home or business, let >me pick up that cry: These are, indeed, some of the people who >represent a real threat to our lives and liberty in America today. > >- > > S. Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:23:51 -0700 From: Boyd Subject: Re: Disarm the BATF As I understand it, "suicide by cop" is a frequent happening where the suicidee purposefully does things to get the police to shoot them because they can't go through with it on their own. The suspicious thing about all of this, to me, (and I'd surely like URLs for local papers there and any confirming sources) is that the guy -did- alledgedly shoot himself. If in fact he did, then what were his reasons? What might he have been afraid of? If he didn't (assuming the worst) what was the BATFs motivation? Given that it is not uncommon for truly depressed people afraid to do this to themselves to engage the local constabulary, how did he (alledgedly) end up shot through the mouth? Boyd "more data" Kneeland sabutigo@teleport.com wrote: > > Sounds like another case of police-assisted suicide to me. > > At 08:05 AM 10/13/98 -0700, you wrote: > >[01] > >Disarm the BATF > >Joseph Farah > > > > > > Another day, another debacle for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco > >and Firearms. > > > >This time, the scene is not Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho, but > >Taft, California -- another hotbed of "anti-government activity." > > > >According to the federal government's own account, the BATF > >began an investigation into illegal firearms sales by people espousing > >anti-government rhetoric three or four years ago with an undercover > >agent allegedly making an illegal purchase of a .22-caliber pistol. > > > >It ended last week with one of the three targets of the federal > >government probe dead in a highly unusual -- and, yes, improbable - > >- incident. > > > >The official story goes something like this: Two BATF agents, a > >Kern County sheriff's deputy and Sgt. Ed Whiting of the Taft Police > >Department attempted to take into custody on illegal firearms > >trafficking charges, Darryl Howell, a 45-year-old grandfather and > >owner of a surplus store that sold, among other things, guns and > >ammunition. > > > >A struggle between the BATF agents and Howell ensued. The cops > >say he broke away from them, lunged for a .45-caliber handgun, put > >it into his mouth and fired a single shot. Whiting, the story goes, had > >become temporarily distracted during the scuffle. When he heard > >the single shot, he instinctively aimed his gun at Howell and fired > >three more shots into his already, presumably, lifeless body. > > > >Now, if you believe that, I have an intercontinental ballistic missile > >I'd like to sell you. > > > >I'm not a cop, and I've never played one on TV. But I have reported > >on enough crime stories in my day to know when one stinks to high > >heaven. And this one smells like a cattle ranch on a windless, > >summer day in California's Central Valley. > > > >Let me see if I have this straight. Four cops, one "suspect." This > >wanted outlaw -- so dangerous he's been under scrutiny of federal > >law enforcement for nearly four years -- is confronted not in his > >home, not on his lunch break, not on his way to work or after he > >locks up, but during the workday in a store loaded with firearms. > >Even though he's not accused of being on PCP or any other drugs, > >he cannot be physically subdued by four officers. They are unable > >to persuade him to come along peacefully or handcuff him > >involuntarily. Instead, he is permitted by these highly trained law > >enforcement professionals to grab one of his guns. But they don't > >shoot him right away. Oh no. They allow him to pick up the > >handgun, bring it all the way up to his mouth and pull the trigger. > >Only then, we are told, does one of the officers, who wasn't paying > >attention, pump the desperado full of lead. > > > >Do these BATF clowns ever learn? Either these guys are > >Washington's answer to the Keystone Kops, or we have on the loose > >a cold, calculating, professional, Gestapo-like killing machine > >designed to root out dissidents exercising their Second Amendment > >rights and blow them away without the messiness of trials and due > >process. > > > >How many times does America need to see such tragedies before it > >wakes up and disarms these dangerous, out-of-control, gun-slinging > >hitmen? The inmates are running the asylum, folks. Beam me up. > > > >There is no allegation made by any of these cowboys that Howell or > >any others charged in a series of raids in the town of Taft last week > >had provided weapons to criminals or represented a threat to law- > >abiding citizens anywhere. In fact, I personally would have felt a lot > >safer in Taft last week, before Mr. Howell was "suicided" than I > >would today. I think most Americans would. > > > >Let's suspend our own cognitive skills and good judgment for a > >moment and pretend the cops' story is 100 percent accurate. Was > >the four-year investigation worth it? Was it a prudent investment of > >taxpayer dollars? Why aren't these law-enforcement heroes out > >investigating real crimes of violence against innocent victims, instead > >of conducting secretive sting operations designed to entrap people > >into violating inherently unconstitutional laws? > > > >But, you know what? Such talk can get you in trouble these days. > >One of the BATF agents responsible for this tragedy said one of > >Howell's friends had (gasp!) complained about a ban on "assault > >weapons" and the actions of President Clinton, Attorney General > >Janet Reno and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. > > > >At the risk of inviting a similar assault on my home or business, let > >me pick up that cry: These are, indeed, some of the people who > >represent a real threat to our lives and liberty in America today. > > > >- > > > > > S. > > Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:09:45 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Disarm the BATF At 08:05 AM 10/13/98 -0700, you wrote: >[01] >Disarm the BATF >Joseph Farah > > > Another day, another debacle for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco >and Firearms. > snip > >Do these BATF clowns ever learn? Either these guys are >Washington's answer to the Keystone Kops, or we have on the loose >a cold, calculating, professional, Gestapo-like killing machine >designed to root out dissidents exercising their Second Amendment >rights and blow them away without the messiness of trials and due >process. > The latter is, in my mind, exactly what they have become; and our rights and lives are absolutely nothing to them. If you ask them we are merely chattle to be treated as so much fecal material. Tom - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:40:27 -0700 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: [Fwd: Important Debate News!!! Get the Latest...] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------146D55CB181C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The attached is from Linda Smith's campaign manager, and is forwarded for info of any Seattle area folks who might prefer conservatism vs. liberalism, and may wish to have a veto proof conservative senate majority next year, or want to show support for such constitutional "details" as the Bill of Rights. Regards, Skip. - --------------146D55CB181C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mx.seanet.com (dns2.seanet.com [199.181.164.2]) by mailhub.pacifier.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14046; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from political (c16.dialup.seanet.com [207.12.129.48]) by mx.seanet.com (8.8.8/Seanet-8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA20716; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:01:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Corwin" To: Subject: Important Debate News!!! Get the Latest... Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:57:29 -0700 Message-ID: <000101bdf6e3$c4f15000$0300a8c0@political> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by smtp.pacifier.com id OAA14099 Linda will be debating Patty Murray in Patty's own back yard Friday afternoon at 1:00 PM. We need you to turn out for a rally by 11:30 AM before the debate in orde= r to pump up Linda and deflate Patty Murray. We already know that Patty Murray's campaign is desperately trying to turn people out for a rally to counter us. We want Linda's people to dominate the pre-debate atmosphere! To do so we must turn out hundreds of people. Please call every Linda Sm= ith supporter you know and ask them join you at the pre-debate rally to let t= he press, the political pundits, and everyone else know that Linda's Army is for real. If we show up en masse it will capture the media spotlight and may force Patty Murray to debate Linda Smith several more times (see press release below). And that's the last thing Patty Murray's campaign wants. It is glaringly obvious that Patty's worst spokesperson is herself. We've been given the perfect opportunity to show the world who we want -- and who should be -- our next U.S. Senator. Bring everyone you know to Seattle U. this Friday to support Linda Smith! This event is so importan= t that, if possible, taking off work for three hours to help build the crow= d may make the difference. It could devastate Patty's campaign! I add this press release to keep you in the loop. For Immediate Release For More Information October 12, 1998 Erik Lokkesmoe, 425-957-7676 Pager, 206-918-5768 Murray Makes It Clear: Debates Not A Priority Senator rejects offer to sit down and discuss future debates Bellevue, WA - Senator Patty Murray has made it clear: she will not even = sit down and discuss future debates with Congresswoman Linda Smith. In a faxed letter received today at Smith=92s campaign headquarters in Bellevue, Murray responded to Smith=92s request to sit down and agree to = more than one debate by stating, =93At this very late date, due to my commitme= nts and obligations, I cannot accommodate your proposal.=94 Last Friday afternoon, a letter from Smith was hand delivered to Murray=92= s Senate office receptionist who confirmed that Murray was in still around = and the letter would reach the Senator. The assistant apparently put Smith=92= s letter underneath Murray=92s office door after work hours. Smith=92s letter stated, =93Patty, since there have been some challenges = in settling a schedule for debates at this point, I have a proposal. Let=92= s agree to a panel of media around the state who will sit on an advisory pa= nel to help determine the location and terms of the debates.=94 =93Senator Murray=92s response proves what many in the public have assume= d all along,=94 Jack St. Martin, Smith=92s campaign manager said. =93The Murra= y campaign never intended to accept more than one debate.=94 According to Murray=92s letter, the October 16 debate will be the only ti= me the two candidates will face the public. In her 1992 campaign for U.S. Senate, Murray accepted four debates with challenger Ron Chandler. Smith, on the other hand, continues to press for more debates. On Primar= y Election night Smith proposed eight debates with Murray in the largest population centers of the state. With no response from the Murray campaig= n, Smith again asked Murray to accept a series of debates around the state. ### Gratefully, Michael Corwin Political Director Linda Smith for US Senate 425-957-7676 Bellevue Office 425-957-7886 FAX Check out our web page at: http://www.lindasmith.com If you desire to contribute, please send donations to: Committee to Elect Linda Smith PO Box 65117 Vancouver, WA 98665-9903 - --------------146D55CB181C-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:17:31 -0700 From: Steve Silver Subject: Election info: Vote "no" on App. Justice Zebrowski As many of you know, the 2nd Calif. Appellate District upheld the city of West Hollywood's "Saturday Night Special" ban in a decision about two weeks ago (California Rifle & Pistol Assn v. City of West Hollywood, Case No. B108910). The issue in the case was whether the state legislature had "preempted" the matter, which means: did the state government leave room for local cities to enact ordinances regulating firearms? The trial court, and now the 2nd Appellate District, ruled local cities may enact such ordinances. This means cities and towns are essentially free to enact a patchwork of contradictory local laws which will trap erstwhile law-abiding gun owners whose only "crime" may be driving through town. There can be little doubt that had the issue arisen in a case not involving firearms, the Appellate Court would have struck down West Hollywood's ordinance since it clearly conflicts with state law. The case is being appealled to the Supreme Court. However, there is something we can do in the interim: the justice who wrote the opinion is up for re-election this November. That's right, Associate Justrice John Zebrowski is on the ballot in Appellate District 2, Division 2, in the Los Angeles area. Be sure to vote NO on John Zebrowski. Let him know that gun owners will not stand idly by while their rights are stripped away from them. If the race for Appellate District 2 does not appear on your ballot, then please notify everyone you know in the Los Angeles area to VOTE NO ON JOHN ZEBROWSKI. - -- Steve Silver Vice President, The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329, Encino, CA 91316 * (818) 734-3066 For a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, "The Liberty Pole," e-mail your snail-mail address to: LSAS3@aol.com. The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) California non-profit corporation * * * GET THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS. VISIT: www.guntruths.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Oct 98 22:38:40 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Investigating The Pollsters (fwd) On Oct 13, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - -----Original Message----- From: David L. Williams To: David L. Williams Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 3:14 PM Subject: Investigating The Pollsters Arrianna Huffington called the pollsters to find out what their methods are, and she discovered that they are getting a 67% hang-up rate. Only 32% willingly staying on the phone with them to participate in the poll. What do you want to bet that the 67% hang-ups are conservative voters. ARIANNA ONLINE 1158 26th Street, Suite #428 Santa Monica, CA 90403 email: info@ariannaonline.com Investigating The Pollsters Filed October 12, 1998 When the history books are written, the Clinton crisis will be the first political crisis to be so entirely driven and shaped by polls. It was, according to Dick Morris' grand jury testimony, a poll that he secretly conducted for the president when the Lewinsky scandal broke that set him on his 8-month-long course of deceiving the public. ``You can't tell them about it, they'll kill you,'' Morris told the president. ``They're just not ready for it.'' And the man who has lived by polls throughout his political career concluded, ``Well, we just have to win, then.'' So the few hundred people who answered Morris' poll determined a critical presidential decision. And now, nine months later, the president's high approval ratings remain his only protection. If the polls are going to be the instrument by which we will judge the fate of this president, it becomes all the more important to answer the key question: Who is talking to pollsters and who isn't? In the 20 months before Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974, 128 polls were conducted asking people whether the president should leave office. In the nine months of the Lewinsky scandal, 325 polls asked that question. It's no wonder that the mushrooming number of opinion polls coupled with the outrageous growth of telemarketing calls have led to a soaring refuse-to-answer rate among people polled. This is not good news for pollsters. The key to polling's accuracy is the principle of ``equal probability of selection.'' But if larger and larger numbers among those randomly selected refuse to participate, this principle no longer applies. It turns out that polling companies will talk about anything except the response and refusal rates of their last poll. Here's a sampling of a nonscientific poll of pollsters that my office conducted between Oct. 1 and Oct. 9, and that illustrated the nonscientific nature of polling. Ours was a short poll: Can you please give us the response and refusal rates for your most recent national poll? ABC News pollster Jeff Alderman's first response was to say that he didn't understand the question. When it was repeated to him, with minor refinements, he growled: ``That's proprietary information. ... I've got another call. Goodbye.'' In polling lingo, that was a refusal -- but a very revealing one. After all, we were not asking if the pollster wanted to change telephone services or presidents. And we were not calling at home during dinner time. Tom Riehle of Peter Hart Associates also used the ``proprietary information'' defense. He called their methods ``our secret recipe'' and explained usefully: ``That's not your business.'' Our little poll was batting 0 for 2 a 100 percent refusal rate. CBS' Kathy Frankovic was reluctant to release CBS response and refusal data without knowing the information her competitors were giving out. She added that it was a complicated issue. But then hiding behind complexity has been a staple of the polling profession. Mike Kagay of the New York Times, Frankovic's partner in the CBS/New York Times polls, did release a response rate for an actual poll, though not the most recent one: 43 percent for the Sept. 12-15 poll. At Gallup, senior methodologist Rajesh Srinivasan promised to fax us response rate data right away. And indeed, we did receive reams of data right away -- on everything except response rates. A representative for Roper-Starch-Worldwide, who did not want his name used, explained that ``that information is not available." [continuity break -- apparent omission from web-posted original] Caddell, who conducted the first major presidential polls for the Carter campaign, is now appalled by the monster he helped unleash. ``The dodging of such basic questions is alarming. When the polling industry is talking to itself, they express their worries about the progressive decline in response rates. But when they talk to the public, they clam up. It's ludicrous to suggest that response and refusal rates are any more proprietary than the size of the sample or the date of the interviews.'' It's time to ask polling companies to make their response rates public for every poll. And if they refuse, perhaps it's time for the media to stop just quoting and start investigating the polling industry to get to the truth behind all the smoke it's been blowing. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 07:11:59 -0400 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: DON'T TAMPER WITH THIS JURY >Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 04:17:57 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: DON'T TAMPER WITH THIS JURY > >DON'T TAMPER WITH THIS JURY > Senator Byrd (D-WV), Senate, October 7, 1998 > > >Mr. President, I have recently read several articles in the press >which are cause for concern. One such article appeared in the >Sunday, October 4, edition of the Washington Post, titled 'Bid to >Trump Inquiry Shelved.' > >The piece discussed White House efforts to produce a letter >signed by at least 34 Democratic Senators declaring that they >would not vote to convict the President, should the House decide >to write articles of impeachment. According to the report, >Minority Leader Tom Daschle has discouraged such an attempt. > >I commend the Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle, for his wise and >judicious counsel on this matter. He has done the White House, >he has done the President, he has done all Senators, and, indeed, >the entire nation a great, great service. > >I am concerned about the ugly and very partisan tone that has >enveloped many discussions of this matter, and about the extreme >polarization which has already occurred. The House Judiciary >Committee has voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. I have had >nothing to say about that. I don't intend to have anything to say >about that. This is the House's business. There is a >constitutional process in place. That process has begun. The ball >is in the field of the House of Representatives at this point. We >here in the Senate should await the decision of the House of >Representatives as to whether or not articles of impeachment >will, indeed, be formulated. > >Senators may at some point have to sit as jurors. Let me say that >again. Senators may at some point have to sit as jurors in this >matter and will be required to take an oath before they do. I >read this oath into the Record a few days ago. I want to read it >again, because the Senate will shortly be going out, not to >return at least until after the elections, and perhaps not until >the new Congress convenes in January. > >To repeat this oath at this point, might be well advised. The >Bible says, 'a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in >pictures of silver,' and so I think it is a good time to repeat >this oath, which will be incumbent upon every Senator, should >articles of impeachment come to this Chamber. Here it is: > >I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of >the impeachment now pending, I will do impartial justice >according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God. > >Note the word 'impartial.' We all need to remember the solemn >responsibility we may be required to shoulder. > >I would suggest by way of friendly advice to the White House, >don't tamper with this jury. Don't tamper with this jury. I have >been in Congress 46 years. I have been in this Senate 40 years. >There are some people here who take their constitutional >responsibilities very seriously. This will not be politics as >usual if articles of impeachment come to this body. > >My friendly words of advice to my colleagues are these: We may >have to sit as jurors. Don't let it be said that we allowed >ourselves to be tampered with, no matter who attempts the >tampering, no matter how subtle the attempt. How can we commit >ourselves to vote for or against articles of impeachment without >having seen them, without having heard the managers on the part >of the House prosecute the articles, without having heard the >impeached person's lawyers and representatives or even the >impeached person himself make the defense? > >How can we as Senators, who will be prospective jurors, commit >ourselves at this point, or at any point, as to how we will vote >on such articles? We cannot do it and live up to the oath that we >will be required to take. It is a solemn matter, it is not >politics as usual, and I personally will resent--and I hope every >other Senator will personally resent--any effort on the part of >anybody in these United States to tamper with Senators as >prospective jurors. I will personally resent it on behalf of the >Senate and on behalf of the Constitution. I urge all Senators to >be on their guard. > >There has been a great deal of gratuitous advice given by people >on the outside, and some on the inside, who know very little, >probably, about the history of impeachment, about the history of >the Senate, about responsibilities of Senators under the >Constitution in such an event. We don't know what the House may >decide to include in articles of impeachment when and if they >ever come to the Senate. There can be an inquiry by the House, >yet never be any articles formulated. That is up to the House. >But if the House decides to formulate articles of impeachment, we >have no choice here in the Senate but to vote up or down. We >can't amend such articles. We have no way of knowing what the >House may consider to be an impeachable offense. An impeachable >offense does not have to be an indictable offense at law. > >So I warn Senators, and I warn those at the other end of the >avenue, to exercise the utmost care lest somebody be unjustly >prejudiced because of tongues that wag too easily and too early. > >I also condemn the circus atmosphere which has overtaken this >city. There are attack dogs on both sides, on the talk shows and >in the press, and their wild and rabid rhetoric is hardly >contributing to an atmosphere of reason or respect. I believe >that everyone must stop playing for advantage. And by that, I >mean Republicans and Democrats alike; I mean people at both ends >of the avenue and in between. > >If the Senate votes on impeachment articles, that will be the >most solemn, the most sobering, and the most far-reaching vote >that Senators in this body will ever cast. Voting for a >declaration of war does not compete with voting to convict or not >to convict a President. We won't be voting to convict a Federal >judge and to remove that judge from office. In this case, it >would be the ultimate vote on the ultimate question that could >ever face this Senate. So I say to my colleagues: Be careful. > >Mr. President, just to illustrate how close we are to making a >total farce of the situation, I note that Larry Flynt, publisher >of a magazine called Hustler, has offered $1 million to anyone >who will come forward with evidence of a sexual liaison with a >Member of Congress or other high-ranking official. How much lower >can we go? Now, that makes a farce of the Constitution. > >Such tactics and countertactics only serve to convince the people >of this Nation that whatever course we eventually take will >amount to nothing more than partisan politics at its very worst. >Now, we all play partisan politics, but this is one thing that >won't bear touching with partisan politics on either side, >Republican or Democrat. This is the Constitution which we have >sworn that we will support and defend. One may say, well, there >is no impeachable offense. This is something we don't know. If >Senators commit themselves prematurely and then find, in reading >the articles, that there is one article that is very, very >difficult to vote against, it may be your own seat that you are >imperiling. > >I urge all Senators, many of whom are going home to stand for >reelection, to avoid making commitments on this matter and to >resist lobbying attempts, no matter how subtle, and no matter who >attempts to lobby them. We must resist pressure from all sides. > >The people are watching. This should not, this cannot, this must >not, become bad, boring, beltway 'politics as usual.' This is a >matter in which partisan politics should play no role. I say this >to my Republican friends as well. There is far, far too much at >stake for the President, for the Presidency, for the system of >separation of powers, for Members of Congress, and for our >country as well. > >Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the >Record the article from the October 4, 1998 Washington Post. > >There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed >in the Record. > > > > > Published in the Oct. 12, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly > Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) > Reposting permitted with this message intact >-- >****************************************************************** > > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > > Grove City, OH 43123 > > > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > > > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com > >****************************************************************** > - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #191 *************************