From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #220 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, March 10 1999 Volume 02 : Number 220 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 07:57:06 -0600 From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Fwd: Claremont Institute Precepts: The Genius of the Impeachment Process - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | March 3, 1999 Visit | | No. 147 In an article in the _Weekly Standard_ entitled "The System Didn't Work" (March 1), conservative commentator James Bowman blames the Constitution for the recent failure of the impeachment process, and expresses a preference for English-style parliamentary government. Under a parliamentary system, Bowman writes, the chief executive serves at the pleasure of the legislative majority and resigns when he loses its confidence. This system is not codified in writing. Rather it is fueled by honor. The fact that America's Founders wrote a Constitution, including a process for impeachment, reflects two misconceptions on their part: a belief that democracy can operate without honor and virtue, and a belief that laws can "solve all human problems." Bowman even asserts that the Founders here anticipated the socialist utopians of the 19th and 20th centuries. There is so much error in this account it is hard to know where to begin. First, the idea that the Founders believed that democracy can do without honor and virtue is hokum. George Washington expressed the founding generation's common and often expressed view on this in his Farewell Address: "'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." Second, the idea behind a written Constitution is that there are limits to what government legitimately can do, in accordance with a permanent standard of right. This standard, laid out in the natural rights principles of the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution, explicitly precludes government from attempting to "solve all human problems" with laws and regulations. Contrary to Bowman, then, America's written Constitution stands as a bulwark against socialism that England's unwritten or "organic" constitution lacks. Insofar as we are following England down the socialist path, we are doing so despite, not because of, our Constitution. Third, in designing the impeachment process, the Founders set out to do something that England had not been able reliably to do: hold the chief executive accountable to the law without killing him. In attempting this, the Founders understood that a political assault alone could not remove a rogue president between elections. Nor could a merely legal assault, unless removal power was placed in the hands of the un-elected judicial branch. But that would severely weaken the presidency, not to mention that it would be undemocratic. The authors of the Constitution solved this by placing the legal process of investigating and trying the president in a political body, namely Congress. This combination of legal and political force is the genius of the American impeachment process. It explains how the process has been used three times against the most powerful individual in the country, resulting once in his resignation, and each time without violence. In this light, the recent failure of the impeachment process to hold the president accountable to the law should not be attributed to the Constitution, but to the Independent Counsel law, passed in 1978, which separated the legal process of impeachment from the political body where the Constitution placed it. Institute Director of Research Glenn Ellmers has written an article on the Independent Counsel law explaining this very point. I invite you to read it at , or go to our home page at . Sincerely, Larry P. Arnn President, The Claremont Institute - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1999 The Claremont Institute To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/subscrib.cfm , or e-mail us at info@claremont.org . To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at info@claremont.org . For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : info@claremont.org , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org . Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : info@claremont.org . For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at topalian@msn.com or (909) 621-6825. The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont, CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Get my public key from iQA/AwUBNt6RH+0M/FuXc0xJEQIoagCgwA6kFesEbZnjdfUEGo6AiSw070sAoN9j r2cBp78Rd2lY9h5lukLJyLZk =KxrC - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:19:56 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: New Air Force Structure (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:00:21 -0600 From: Scott Burris To: Heavy Bombers Subject: New Air Force Structure Heavy Bomber Groups of WWII - http://www.heavybombers.com I quote the following article from the AP for your information: Air Force reorganizes itself into 10 'expeditionary' groups WASHINGTON (AP) - The Air Force announced today it was setting up 10 ``expeditionary'' groups that would rotate responsibility for deployments to trouble spots like Bosnia and the skies over Iraq. Those in each group would be on call for deployments during one 90-day period every 15 months. The reorganization was an effort to ease the strain of increasing overseas missions and to improve morale in the face of a growing exodus of pilots for higher-paying jobs with airlines. Under the new structure, Air Force crews would know well in advance when they might be sent overseas - and for how long they'd have to stay. The reorganization, to be put in place by next January, is the first major overhaul of the service's structure since the end of the Cold War. The new groups are intended to deploy around the globe within 48 hours for military missions. Another five groups were set up to perform humanitarian missions. Each ``air expeditionary force'' will total about 250 planes, including fighter jets and heavy bombers as well as reconnaissance, electronic warfare, refueling and transport aircraft. The aircraft will remain based at separate airfields, but air crews will train together. Two groups will be on duty at any given time. The groups will also incorporate National Guard and Reserve units. Each force would be about half the size of the 2,000-troop units that went to battle during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The 10 forces will have headquarters at: Hill Air Force Base, Utah; Dyess Air Force Base, Texas; Elemendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; Lakenheath Air Base in England; Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.; Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.; Barksdale Air Force Base, La.; Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D.; Cannon Air Force Base, N.M. and Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. In addition, there will be another five units that will focus only on humanitarian aid missions. They will have headquarters at Pope Air Force Base, N.C.; Travis Air Force Base, Calif.; McConnell Air Force Base, Kan.; Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D. and Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash. The Pentagon cited a four-fold jump in the number of foreign operations over the next decade. Copyright 1999 Associated Press. _________________________________ Scott Burris - 381st BGMA Member E-mail: scott@heavybombers.com Web: http://www.heavybombers.com ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to Heavy_Bombers-unsubscribe@listbot.com Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 11:09:09 -0800 From: skip Subject: Re: New Air Force Structure (fwd) Paul M Watson wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:00:21 -0600 > From: Scott Burris > To: Heavy Bombers > Subject: New Air Force Structure > > Heavy Bomber Groups of WWII - http://www.heavybombers.com > > I quote the following article from the AP for your information: > > Air Force reorganizes itself into 10 'expeditionary' groups > > WASHINGTON (AP) - The Air Force announced today it was setting up 10 > ``expeditionary'' groups that would rotate responsibility for deployments to > trouble spots like Bosnia and the skies over Iraq. > Those in each group would be on call for deployments during one 90-day > period every 15 months. > I read about this earlier. After 40 years, the USAF is switching to the Navy model of predictable, rotating overseas deployments of its carrier battle groups (or in the USAF case, it's new "expeditionary" groups). Rotating deployment schedules allow everyone from seaman/airman to admiral/general, including their families, to know when the next overseas deployment will be and prepare for it, mentally, emotionally and financially. International crises will still upset the normal rotation, but unpredictable schedules become the exception rather than the rule. I'm astonished that the USAF has stayed with their morale-killing total-flexibility concept so long. Incidentally, it takes 3 USN battle groups/USAF expeditionary groups to maintain each 1 forward deployed - 1 is deployed, 1 is training it's people and fine tuning it's equipment for imminent deployment, and 1 is recovering from the just-completed deployment (overhauling, repairing and upgrading its equipment, resting and retraining/remotivating it's people, letting them have some time to get to know their kids again after 6 months away from home, etc.) FYI, Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 20:30:53 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Sports Authority - Time for a Counterattack! (fwd) On Mar 5, Jurist wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] MarjBud@aol.com wrote: > > We don't have a choice. We have to fight the matter out here and now. Everything we lose, we probably will not be able to recover because the "big lie" that produced the loss would be justified. "Lie" becomes "truth." Why? ... Because those with enough experience to know the real truth will be-politically-dead and buried... Want to repeal Lautenberg? As Clinton says, "lets forget the past and move on." Only a republican president and a republican congress will listen to us. > Bryant Hopkins Agreed Bry, Sure -- the Left loves to perpetrate the Lie that change Leftwards is irreversible -- but we know differently. Reagan called it "rollback."* May I suggest that we quit playing defense at our own 5-yard line. It's time for a counterattack! When the chips were down during the Blitz, Churchill reversed the Nazi momemtum by bombing Berlin. Doolittle struck at the heart of the Japanese Empire during the darkest days after Pearl Harbor by bombing Tokyo and MacArthur reversed the Chinese juggernaut by landing the Marines at Inchon. Reagan beat the entire Soviet Union by simply demanding and implementing a "rollback!" We too can demand and win Rollback. It must become our rallying cry. Gentlemen - your target for today - the 1968 Gun Control Act. It is a NAZI LAW and a prime target too long neglected. Recall how the Left has many times caused Republicans to recoil in horror at the accusation of being called "Nazi"? We have to learn to play the emotional appeal game. The GCA is a ripe target. The 1968 Gun Control Act was lifted in large part from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938** and introduced by Democratic Senator Dodd who, notably, managed to both fend off criticism and win it's passage -- based on **emotional** attack and appeal (e.g. sympathy in wake of MLK and Bobby Kennedy assassinations). The methodology might go like this.. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate/House, there is a Nazi hiding here - -- in this Senate/House -- I am certain that you will ALL agree that the EVIL that was Nazism has NO PLACE in the body of American law! I call on you to assist me in calling this evil out into the open and exorcising it from this august house." [Pulling out a copy of the 1968 Gun Control Act with a Swastika Coversheet. Now saying with some anger] "...THIS is it! THIS is the 1968 Gun Control Act -- lifted chapter and verse from the NAZI Weapons Law of 1938! That's right, Ladies and Gentlemen, this was and IS a NAZI LAW! It is outrageous and despicable that a law created under the monster Hitler now controls the lives of law-abiding American citizens. It offends me, it offends the people of America, it offends the Constitution! [now holding up a copy of the Bill of Rights] "This is an evil NAZI LAW Ladies and Gentlemen. It must be killed like the Vampire that it is... sucking the freedom from the American People. [Now produce a phone directory - lay it upon the podium - lay the NAZI LAW upon the directory - now produce a mallet and wooden stake -- drive the stake through the Swastika coversheet of the 1968 Gun Control Act - - - hold up the impaled document] "Can there be any choice between the United States Constitution [holding up the Constitution] and a NAZI LAW?" [holding up the NAZI GCA'68] "The answer is obvious. I will call for a Roll Call vote on H/S-XXXX repealing the NAZI LAW, we shall see who the NAZI sympathizers and who upholds and defends the US Constitution as they have sworn to do." "Mr. Speaker I yield back my time." Colorful, yes. Dramatic, yes. Not enough listen to the dry facts, figures and history. This one would put the Leftists on the spot and clearly delineate the Left from the Americans. Even if initially voted down, the fact that Senator/ Congressman X **supported** a NAZI LAW could and should be used as a campaign issue. Another thing, keep introducing the repeal until it passes, including as riders within Omnibus Budget Acts. Persistance is another area where we fall short. I am currently looking for work on Capitol Hill and will personally campaign to see if I can convince a Congressman or Senator to put forward just such an argument. Heck, I'd do it myself if sent to Washington. It needs to be done. In Liberty, Rick V. - --------------------------------- Supporting documentation - --------------------------------- ** ". . . we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added). This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 -- 4 months before GCA '68 was enacted -- Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. Why did Dodd own the original German text of any Nazi law? Why did he make known that he owned it? .. The prosecutors at Nuremberg doubtless knew of the Nazi Weapons Law. They probably saw it in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt.' On the same day that Nazi Interior Minister Frick signed the Weapons Law, March 18, 1938... ('Reichsgesetzblatt' 1938, I, p. 262; the Nazi Weapons Law..). .. He may not have realized that he was revealing a broader truth; that the whole fabric of GCA '68 was based on the Nazi Weapons Law, even if the specific registration proposal was not so based... This hearing record suggests strongly that the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) himself implanted the Nazi Weapons Law into American law, or, at very least, helped others to do so." http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm * Leftists Complain About Success of Reagan Rollback Doctrine http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/ReaganDoctrine_TWRollback.html http://www.dailyrepublican.com/cityhall/messages/29.html - ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ---------------------------------------------------------------- [------------------------- 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, 5 Mar 99 20:32:21 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: In the Wilderness - March 5, 1999 (fwd) On Mar 5, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] IN THE WILDERNESS (c) 1999 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. ================================================================ THE EIGHTH DEADLY SIN Somehow while I was growing up I managed to absorb a number of rules of proper manly conduct that don't seem to get taught these days. Don't lie, cheat, steal, brag, threaten, or betray, nor try to induce others to do these things. Don't come to a judgment if you aren't reasonably sure of the facts. Don't AVOID coming to judgment if you ARE reasonably sure of the facts. Once your mind's made up, get moving. If you're wrong, admit it. Apologize when appropriate, but only when appropriate. Don't promise more than you honestly think you can deliver. Order your loyalties and stick to that order. But of all the rules I absorbed, I guess there was one that stands above them all. Breaking any other rule might be defensible, but not this one. NEVER WHINE. Whining, of course, means more than just making that annoying, childish sound while complaining. It also refers to a complaint repeated so often that it takes more energy to keep repeating it than would be invested in addressing it. Constant reiterations of blame constitute whining, as does any campaign of demonization. According to the code of conduct that I learned, a grown man makes his point as best he can, argues it if necessary to ensure he is understood as well as he thinks he needs to be, then he pipes down and either sets about fixing the problem or learns to live with it. The prohibition against whining was so vehement, back then, because no grown man wanted to be mistaken for a child in his behavior. In those days one of the worst insults anyone could hurl at another was "crybaby." Nor was this a new thing. In Owen Wister's "The Virginian," the character Steve, who is about to be hanged for cattle rustling by a party of cowboys that includes his friend the Virginian, snubs the latter rather than speak and risk breaking down with emotion over his impending death. Steve takes the noose more or less cheerfully, and only later does the Virginian discover his written farewell on a scrap of newspaper. Maturity, however, is out of vogue in these post-modern times. Where scarcely a generation ago a TV character with absolutely no emotions became a cultural icon, today a politician draws fire when he fails to respond favorably to a mob of whiners on the steps of his state's Capitol. Although the most scathing insult one can hurl today remains "racist," "cold-hearted" is certainly in the top rank. Crybabies not only don't draw scorn anymore, they're admired. To rise in any field of endeavor anymore one must whine louder, more persistently, and more nerve-wrackingly than the rest. It's progressed beyond merely wearing one's heart on one's sleeve -- to get the full effect one must fly it like a banner, waving it back and forth, hurling cholesterol in every direction. And what are the grown-ups doing about it these days? Well, it's been said often enough that in any war the sides tend to behave more like one another the longer it goes on. This is why Paul Weyrich's comments have created such consternation both in and out of politics. On the one hand, Weyrich's complaint sounds like whining. On the other hand, what he's advising is that those who feel as he does stop complaining -- which is all that politics has become, after all. When he suggests that "moral majority" conservatives consider opting out of political activism, what he's suggesting is that they *stop* whining and apply their energies to addressing those aspects of the problem that are within their reach. It's a suggestion that would be well considered in all camps of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Okay, so Newt Gingrich made the present congressional majority possible, only to lose his way and then his job. *Whaddaya gonna do about it?* So Bob Dole and George Bush ran the most inept presidential campaigns this side of Lyndon Larouche. *Whaddaya gonna do about it?* So the Omnibus Broadcasting System has been out of the closet for six years and openly favoring the other side. *Whaddaya gonna do about it?* Whining is not a strategy. If the Republicans keep their congressional majority for a hundred years, will that by itself fix anything? If some other political party eclipses the GOP by offering an ideologically pure platform more suited to your own point of view, will that by itself fix anything? If you find a magic lamp and the genie residing within grants you three wishes, will that by itself fix anything? Whining is not a strategy. I don't mean simply that we ourselves shouldn't whine. I mean that it's time to establish and enforce a hard and fast NO WHINING rule just as ruthlessly as others enforce their NO RACISM rule. - -30- March 5, 1999 ================================================================ **Visit the IN THE WILDERNESS archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/wilderness/ 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 22:32:12 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Re: Thompson and Nichols Ask You to Contact Arkansas Bar (fwd) On Mar 05, Huck wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Thought this would be important to both lists. The points made are valid! If you believe that Clinton is guilty of rape then take the time to write a short letter and mail it! This time the law is on the side of the people! Thanks, Huck > Subject: Fwd: Thompson and Nichols Ask You to Contact Arkansas Bar > Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:35:51 -0600 (CST) > > Subject: > Thompson and Nichols Ask You to Contact Arkansas Bar > Date: > Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:00:37 EST > From: > Jackpeace@aol.com > To: > Jackpeace@aol.com, rush@eibnet.com > > I am troubling you again because Larry Nichols and I have stumbled > across an approach that just may succeed in taking Bill Clinton to the > wall. Rush Limbaugh was crying out yesterday for a solution like this. > Here it is: > > Larry and I have done a lot of interviews in the past two weeks > regarding our writ of mandamus effort to discredit the Senate verdict. > Our problem has proven to be this: the inability to find a Washington, > D.C. lawyer willing to litigate the writ of mandamus in federal court in > Washington. That is a requirement of that approach. No one wants > to do it, and federal procedural rules require it. Our heart has been > in the right place, but we have run into obstacles. But just like a > successful football coach makes adjustments at halftime, we have > an adjustment here that can win the game. Please read this, > because you will be convinced. > > The Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys > are very clear that a single incident of rape, let alone a serial > pattern of sexual misconduct, proves a lawyer unfit to practice law. > The decisions on this are vastly on our side. There is no statute > of limitations on the rapes when it comes to a Bar grievance, and > other victims can be subpoenaed. > > The latest polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans > who saw Juanita Broaddrick's "Dateline" interview on NBC believe > her. Oh, yes, there are the CNN and other bogus polls that say a > majority do not believe her, but these polls included people who > either did not see the broadcast and/or did not even know of the > rape allegation! > > The Arkansas Bar must, absolutely must, proceed against Bill > Clinton, because of the credible evidence that Juanita [Hickey] > Broaddrick was raped. If the Bar does not proceed, then we go > for a writ of mandamus ordering the Bar to proceed, and sworn > testimony can be compelled from the President even at that > early phase. This is what we want: to put this pathological liar > under oath again and see if he will perjure himself again about > sex with a woman, in this instance a rape. The target here is > Bill Clinton, not the Senate, and it is a big, fat target. It is the > right target. > > Bill Clinton might decide to surrender his law license, just as > Richard Nixon did in 1976, rather than put up a fight, but those > of you too young to remember forget what a bludgeon that > disbarment was in the hands of the liberal elites. Disbarment > may be the only sanction anyone ever secures against this > sicko. > > The media is interested. Larry and I have already had an > encouraging response from the media: ABC contacted me > about the Arkansas Bar proceedings. Chris Ruddy's NewsMax. > com is currently reporting it at "Clinton Scandals," and Larry and > I are making the radio talk show rounds ginning up listeners to > send their own separate grievances to the Arkansas Bar. The > Bar is receiving more grievances. Make the trickle a torrent. > > Here is what you can do. Send the following two sentence > grievance (use your own words if you like) to the Arkansas Bar: > > "This is my Bar grievance against Bill Clinton. His rape of > Juanita Broaddrick proves he is unfit to hold a law license." > That's it. Send your grievance, along with your name, address, > and phone number to: > > James Neal > Committee on Professional Conduct > Justice Building, Room 2200 > 625 Marshall Street > Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FAX to 501-374-1853 > > If you do that, you will help this country. Lots of grievances will > tactically strengthen our hand in the writ of mandamus action, > as it will show public outrage that the Arkansas Bar puts its > "favorite perverted son" ahead of justice. > > If you send your grievance in today, you will be in good company. > The Southeastern Legal Foundation, which so ably has > represented the heroic former FBI Agent Gary Aldrich (Unlimited > Access), filed its original grievance months ago and just amended > it to include the rape grounds. Matt Glavin at SLF told me this > yesterday. > > We're taking Bill Clinton to the wall on this one. It may be our last > but best chance. > > The Washington Times published my letter to the editor twenty > months ago that nothing substantive would ever come out of > Ken Starr's office to clean up the mess in the White House. I > stand by that. You know why we have a better shot than Starr? > Because we common citizens bring a sense of moral outrage > to this that academic, hyper-fastidious lawyers can't muster. > > And if you think this is just a vendetta by conservatives against > a Democrat President, think again. The New York Post today > reports a book about to be published that Israel's Mossad had > tape recordings of the phone sex between Monica and Bill and > used the tapes to blackmail Clinton and our security people into > not rooting out a Mossad agent deep in the White House. Starr > knew this and did nothing. Is our Bar grievance gambit "just > about sex?" No, it is about the physical safety of our children. > I have a six-year-old boy. I want to take out Bill Clinton, by all > legal and proper means, to make it more likely that he himself > might live to have a family. > > Let's disbar Bill Clinton. If we prove what we think we can > prove in that proceeding, then he's toast. We'll then break out > the marmalade. The drinks will be on me. > > Jack Thompson, Attorney > > ___________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 13:00:07 -0600 From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Fwd: Claremont Institute Precepts: Harry Blackmun's Legacy - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | March 5, 1999 Visit | | No. 148 Former United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun died on Thursday. He was 90 years old. Today, Justice Blackmun's memory is praised on the front pages of America's newspapers. He is hailed by liberal jurists, academics, and pundits as "a towering figure in American law." His most notable contribution to the annals of jurisprudence is also one of the most notorious. The _New York Times_ headline stated it succinctly, if incompletely: "Justice Blackmun, Author of Abortion Right, Dies." Blackmun played a prominent role in the ongoing project to transform our Constitution from a clear and fixed document, into a thing that "evolves." Indeed, one may say that this project abandons the very idea of constitutionalism. For what is the point of a written constitution? It is to place, in clear and direct language, unchanging limits on government and protections for individual rights. The Constitution thus understood, however, poses an obstacle to the new understanding of rights. In this understanding our rights are not natural and unalienable, but rather subjective--and they are created, dispensed, and apportioned by government. And since our rights "evolve" there can be no permanent limits on the government which dispenses them. Likewise, the Constitution must also evolve--meaning that it becomes whatever the managers of this project wish. Only then is it possible to write, as Blackmun did in the court's landmark _Bakke v. Regents_ decision: "In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently." This same inventiveness appeared in _Roe v. Wade_, where Blackmun and his colleagues found a right to abortion on demand in the Constitution's "penumbras and emanations." And regarding the death penalty, he asserted there was no way to square capital punishment with the Constitution, even though it is mentioned three times in the document. It's a testament to Blackmun's legacy that this nonsense will long outlive him. Unfortunately, it's also a testament to his legacy that Americans will have to live with it, at least for a time. Claremont Institute Adjunct Fellow Hadley Arkes explores the consequences of Blackmun's _Roe_ opinion in a new op- ed. I invite you to read it at , or go to our home page at . Sincerely, Larry P. Arnn President, The Claremont Institute - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1999 The Claremont Institute To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/subscrib.cfm , or e-mail us at info@claremont.org . To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at info@claremont.org . For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : info@claremont.org , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org . Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : info@claremont.org . For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at topalian@msn.com or (909) 621-6825. The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont, CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Get my public key from iQA/AwUBNuF7LO0M/FuXc0xJEQK9ugCfeuC2jWgrSIXH0KBMPGYh64BNHBAAnRLk 8lDzCBUAoci8unoIDYCYzK0f =dzDG - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 14:11:19 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Illinois bill to force home-schoolers into vaccination/database (fwd) On Mar 8, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The educrats in charge of government schools are not about to let home-schoolers get away without a chase. I thought the whole reason for childhood immunizations was so kids wouldn't start schoolhouse epidemics. Now the prospect of a child coming down with measles at home where the educrats won't know about it, is judged worth another government invasion of the home. Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Whining is not a strategy. - -----Original Message----- From: Stephen McGehee To: Recipient list suppressed Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 5:30 PM Subject: Child "Registration" >From: "ScanThisNews" >To: "ScanThisNews Recipients List" >Subject: [FP] Illinois bill to force home-schoolers into vaccination/database >Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 19:30:43 -0600 > >====================================================================== >SCAN THIS NEWS >3/7/99 > >[Forwarded from Betty Peters, Alabama Eagle Forum] > >Decatur Herald & Review >March 4, 1999 >Home-school backers lose legislative battle >Decatur, Illinois > >By ANTHONY MAN > >H&R Springfield Bureau Chief > >SPRINGFIELD -- Dozens of home-schooled children and their parents got a >civics lesson Wednesday at the state Capitol. > >Despite packing a committee hearing room and flooding legislators with >telephone calls, they failed to stop a measure that would require parents >to report the names and immunization status of their home-schooled children >to the government. > >The sponsor, state Rep. Ricca C. Slone, D-Peoria Heights, said her >legislation is an obvious way to improve public health. She said she also >is concerned that parents could remove their children from schools and say >they are home schooling them, which would make it hard for authorities to >uncover cases of neglect or abuse. > >"There is a legitimate public health interest in seeing these kids >immunized that arguably overrides the privacy right," she said. >"Regrettably, under the cover of 'we are home schooling,' (some) are >probably neglecting their kids." > >Opponents vehemently disagree. > >Many of the parents who educate their children at home rather than at >public, parochial or private schools regard the proposal as a momentous >invasion of their constitutional rights. Others believe it is the first >step toward improper government interference in their lives. > >Barbara Cole, who grew up in Decatur and now lives in Mount Vernon, home >schools her five children, ages 4, 5, 7, 11 and 12. > >Her concern about the prospect of the government collecting names and >immunization records is blunt: "Stalin believed in registration. Hitler >believed in registration." > >Martha Ruppert of Hillsboro agreed. "Registration has to come before >control. This is a first step. The underlying premise is that parents do >not know what is best for their children," she said. "I think I'm capable >of taking care of my children." > >Ruppert also is educating five children at home, ages 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16. >She said her two oldest children, who also were home schooled, are now in >college. > >Scott A. Woodruff, a lawyer with the Virginia-based Home School Legal >Defense Association, came to Illinois to work against Slone's proposal. > >"This bill is out of step with America," he said. "Home-based private >school education is a constitutional right. This bill erodes that right." > >Slone's legislation would require parents or guardians of children in >home-school programs to: > > >. Notify the county health department by Nov. 15 each year of the names, >addresses and birth dates of all children who are home schooled. >. Make sure each child receives the same kind of immunizations and >vision and hearing screenings required of public school students. >. Submit proof to the health department. >. Provide a written explanation detailing the grounds for religious >or constitutional objections if the child does not have the immunizations >or screenings. Alternatively, a physician could state that administering >the immunization would be harmful to the child. > > >The legislation drew a range of opponents, mostly conservative and >religious organizations. They included Eagle Forum, Christian Home >Educators Association, Concerned Women for America and Concerned Christian >Americans. > >Slone's supporters came from northwestern Illinois. John B. Lang, >superintendent of the Regional Office of Education in Carroll, Jo Daviess >and Stephenson counties, was one. He was joined by Donald L. Kussmaul, >superintendent of East Dubuque schools and Ken Hupp, superintendent in >Galena. > >The three said they have no quarrel with the dedication of people who >educate their children at home, but society has an interest in protecting >the health of those children. > >They echoed Slone's concern that removing students from school with no >record of where they are going could make it more difficult to uncover >abuse or neglect. Each said there was no particular problem in northwestern >Illinois that motivated them to travel to Springfield. > >"We care about all the kids in our buildings, all the kids in our >community, and all the kids that seem to be forgotten," Hupp said. > >The three educators were far outnumbered by supporters of home schooling. > >People filled the seats and stood along the walls of a House hearing room, >and after they lost, about 70 parents and children adjourned to a Capitol >Complex cafeteria to plot strategy. > >"Don't get upset yet," counseled Eagle Forum of Illinois President Fran >Eaton. "We're going to have to do some work with our legislators." > >One technique already proved ineffective: Home schoolers inundated the >offices of Human Services Committee members with telephone calls urging >defeat of the legislation. > >Instead the committee approved the measure 7-5. No area representatives >serve on the committee. > >The proposal now goes to the full House, where Slone would not predict its >fate. "One day at a time," she said. > >-------------------------- >Forwarded by >Jimmy Kilpatrick >EducationNews.org http://www.EducationNews.org >ReadbyGrade3.com http://www.readbygrade.com >k-12Science.org http://www.k-12science.org > >======================================================================= >Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: >1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or >2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. >======================================================================= >Reply to: >======================================================================= > To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to > and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. > Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY. > For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. > Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: > www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml >======================================================================= [------------------------- 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 #220 *************************