From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #259 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, July 19 1999 Volume 02 : Number 259 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Jul 99 20:12:49 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #144 (2/3) (fwd) On Jul 17, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The only "deal" Carter made was that Resendez wanted promises for his safety while in jail, regular visiting rights for family and a psychological evaluation. That was approved by Harris County District Attorney John Holmes. And, before long, Carter received the call and a quiet surrender was scheduled. They met on a remote bridge connecting Zaragosa, Mexico with El Paso, Texas. No police helicopters, Army tanks or SWAT teams were necessary. Carter said that he immediately recognized Maturino Resendez when he rode across the bridge in a pickup. "That's a face that has just been shown all over the country for a long period of time now, and it's a face that I've been working on for the better part of six months," Sergeant Carter reported. "So when I did see that face there was a little bit of excitement there because I finally said, 'This is going to happen.'" Note here, dear reader, that not one thing was mentioned about a gun yet. Here we have a Texas Ranger standing on a bridge -- white cowboy hat and badge visible -- with empty hands because Sergeant Carter's gun was holstered. And now, here comes even more police work at its finest: "He stuck out his hand, I stuck out my hand and we shook hands, and then I handcuffed him and he was in custody," the Texas Ranger said. That's all there was to that. The perpetrator was under arrest. The suspect was in custody. The manhunt was over. Sergeant Carter's bosses say that the international manhunt would have continued if not for the relationship Carter cultivated with the suspect's sister. "This really, as far as we can tell, would not have happened without Ranger Carter," Department of Public Safety spokesman Mike Cox told reporters. But the 32-year-old Carter rejected sole credit for the arrest, citing assistance from the FBI, U.S. Marshals and other agencies. And, of course, the FBI was all bent out of shape that a Texas Ranger made the arrest. So, they jumped the gun with a full press conference, seeming to take credit. A rookie Texas Ranger Sergeant captured someone on their "Most Wanted" list without asking them for an assist -- and without firing a shot or even drawing his weapon. That is unacceptable to the suits. But, that is exactly what went down. One Texas Ranger spokesman called it a "surrender without shots." We hate to keep bringing up old stories, but think of what the difference would have been if the Texas Rangers handled Waco. . . . I had occasion to spend a couple weeks beating the bushes with an old Ranger Captain a few decades ago. One thing I immediately noticed was that people respected him. He had awesome speed with both his hands and a gun, but that was not the reason. That Texas Ranger showed respect for all others. And, because of that, people honestly liked and respected him. It's nice to hear that there may still be some of that around in law enforcement. And it looks like Texas Ranger Sergeant Drew Carter may be one such person. We salute you, Sergeant Carter, for some very good police work. THE WELFARE SCAM About thirty years ago, the Johnson Administration started a scheme intended to lock in the Negro vote for the Democratic Party. "We'll have 'em eating out of our hands forever," Johnson told aides. And so they did. The "Great Society" program changed urban life for all races, but impacted heaviest on the Black community. Where once there were families -- mothers, fathers and children -- living together peacefully in our cities, suddenly young girls could "get paid" for having children out of wedlock and "fathers" were but an unnecessary interference. Actually, girls with children could not "get paid" if a man was living with them. So, within a decade, single parent households, on welfare, became common. I actually visited five generations of unwed welfare mothers living in one house. And, except for the children, no males were allowed -- else the welfare would be cut off. So, what of the boys? They were lost in the "Great Society" scam. Essentially, the boys from this arrangement became throw away humans, not needed or wanted for anything more than a little coupling once in a while. Government passed laws precluding young boys from picking up part time jobs, which kept them broke. Government schools don't care if the kids learn or not. Teachers pass them on to the next grade no matter what they don't know. Even graduating from high school is no insurance kids can read their diploma anymore. So, it's no surprise that, after a few generations of this government interference, there were a lot of feral boys running the streets in the inner-city. Nor is it a surprise that many of them banded together, in predatory street gangs. These boys crave structure. They receive no adult supervision, so they form their own structure. That we do not like their structure is neither here nor there. These kids might be totally ignorant, but they are not stupid. They found someplace to belong. Part of the initiation for most of these street gangs is to stick up a store or someone on the street. The initiation for some of the street gangs is to kill someone. In fact, there are some gangs that are enforcement agents for other gangs. That is, they kill people for profit. We find a few thousand kids involved in such structured groups in every inner-city today. Generally speaking, most are involved in the illegal drug trade. And, again, that is no surprise. These are ignorant, feral boys. There is no other opportunity open to them. They can either join a gang and traffic in drugs, or they can rob and steal. That's about it in many inner-city neighborhoods. But, the socialists got the Black population voting for the Democrats. That's all that Johnson wanted. Now comes NAACP honcho, Kweisi Mfume, trying to blame gun manufacturers for the actions of feral boys. "Easily available handguns are being used to turn many of our communities into war zones," said Mfume. "The fact that the illegal trafficking of firearms disproportionately affects minority communities in this country is indisputable. Urban communities have sadly become so accustomed to the prevalence of firearms in their neighborhoods that they are no longer shocked at the sound of gunfire." Not said is the fact that things were not like that before the national socialists interfered. People walked the streets safely in every Detroit neighborhood back then. Today, everyone is susceptible to assault and robbery. That's our liberal Great Society in action. It's killing people. The Democrats paid dearly to lock in that Black vote, too. Just about a year ago, the Heartland Institute added up the cost of all those liberal Great Society programs. It's astonishing: "Between 1965 and 1997, welfare spending cost taxpayers $6.98 Trillion (in constant 1997 dollars). After adjusting for inflation, the cost of the War on Poverty has [------------------------- 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, 17 Jul 99 20:13:46 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #144 (1/3) (fwd) On Jul 17, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 18, 1999 #144 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- REINING IN GOVERNMENT Under Hillary's Marxist medical conspiracy, 78 new felonies were to be created. One would think that, after her scheme was thoroughly trounced, that would be the end of it. But no, Chester (Trent Lott) the rights molester has again allowed our personal rights to be debated in the Senate. This time, the scheme is under the guise of a patient's "bill of rights." How quaint. How unconstitutional! If government wishes to "create" a good medical program for the citizens of the United States, it is easy. I refer them back to my proposal made during the Hillary debacle. In a nutshell, that proposal was: Have but one form of medical insurance for all elected, appointed and hired federal bureaucrats. That program should not only be mandatory for all federal bureaucrats and their families, but the very same program mandatory for all Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Except to say that this would be the only medical insurance program paid with taxpayer funds, no other laws, rules and regulations would be necessary. The elected ones and their bureaucratic buddies, who always demand the best of everything for themselves, would soon have a very efficient program operational. And really, just because they work in government, there is no reason they should have better medical treatment than that available to our grandparents or the poor people down the road. That would be a Constitutional program. What the Senate is discussing now is no more Constitutional than the gun laws Chester the rights molester allowed to be discussed last month. Because, simply put, they have no authority to legislate on these issues. So, we need a fix for their foolishness: A few years ago, federal bureaucrats exerted their authority over isolated "wetlands" via the Constitution's Commerce Clause using diabolical logic we might wish to apply to other matters. Some bright light in the government decided that since migratory birds fly across state lines, federal agencies can regulate isolated wetlands that might be seen by flying migratory birds. That is, areas the birds might wish to use as a stopover while flying to wherever could be regulated. Under this silly "glancing geese" logic, property owners who never imagined they owned wetlands subject to regulation are finding out they now do. We need an amendment to the Constitution halting debate or action of any proposed law, rule or regulation violating the original intent of the Founding Fathers. A "glancing citizen's" amendment. That is, if a citizen's committee in any State "glances" at a proposed law, rule or regulation impacting on the rights of citizens and finds that it may be unconstitutional, they may halt all action on the matter until a full Constitutional study is completed. Then, if the proposing bureaucrats are found to be in violation of the Constitution, they are to be prosecuted for violation of their Oath of Office and minimum sentences shall be applicable. Lying to the American people should count, too. For instance, federal officials are saying we now have a Trillion-dollar budget surplus. What a whopper! The national debt is $5.85 Trillion and still growing at the rate of about $293 million per day. http://www.dailyrepublican.com/nationaldebt.html Which means, each citizen's -- every man, woman, child, and illegal alien -- share of this debt is about $20,700.00. Entitlements -- direct government payments to individuals, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. -- make up nearly half of all federal spending. Interest payments on the debt we've already accumulated makes up nearly half of what's left. Therefore, in order to balance the budget, all cuts must come out of the one- quarter of the budget that's left. The federal debt increased $120 Billion in 1998. Does that sound like a budget surplus to anyone? That's an increase of another $450 per every man, woman and child; or $1,800 for a family of four. Furthermore, it should be mandatory that every elected official certify that they have studied and understand each and every clause in every bill on which they vote. If they do not, they should be subject to prosecution for criminal negligence. After all, these bills can adversely affect hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting citizens. Therefore, legislators should be held to a much higher standard that any other professional person. Bringing up the rear is the problem of campaign contributions. No person, except a registered voter within a politician's district, should ever be allowed to contribute to an election campaign. And no bureaucrat should ever be able to accept anything of value for themselves or their families. Nothing. That is the only way we can halt the billion dollar lobby industry from effecting the vote on Capitol Hill and the regulations promulgated by the regulatory politburos. It is our responsibility, as citizens, to demand accountability from all government officials. These few steps will help. POLICE WORK WITH BRAINS Sergeant Drew Carter was taking some time off for fishing in the Gulf of Mexico when he got the call last Sunday. It was from a suspect's sister, in Albuquerque, N.M. That was the call Sergeant Carter had been waiting for, so he forgot the fishing, jumped on a plane and went back to work. Over the next two days, the young Sergeant brokered negotiations that led to one of the most high- profile arrests (the media says) in his department's history. "Honesty's never hard. Sincerity is something people sense. That's what I did. I was honest with the family," Carter said, wearing a white cowboy hat and his shiny Texas Ranger badge. For weeks, the Texas Ranger Sergeant had been building a relationship with the family of suspected serial killer Angel Leoncio Reyes-Resendis, AKA Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, or the "railroad serial killer." Carter was trying to get a man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List to turn himself in. "I will say that there were very personal one-on-one discussions with family members representing the subject and myself and other people that brought this about," Carter said. And, finally, it all paid off. [------------------------- 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: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 10:22:55 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Cutting our losses These seem like a prologue to another "least of two evils" argument. Neither party takes the Constitution seriously. Both are dedicated to big gov with ever-expanding powers. Gun prohibition is merely one aspect of the fundamental problems with Democratic and Republican parties. If we wish to change this, we better understand social change better than our opposition, which currently has all of the advantages: a compliant media, a complacent and ignorant populace. I suggest, as usual, the Libertarian Party as the vehicle for changing everyone's attitude toward gov. It has lots of advantages, which I won't list here. Everyone's major objection is "extreme", relative to today's values. However, remember that Civil Rights won not because Martin Luther King was initially seen as a nice guy who was 'right', but rather he was positioned as a moderate compared to the Black Panthers. The BPs gained most of their goals. Similarly, the Socialists won far more than they ever dreamed -- Repubs revere such Socialist wet-dreams as Social Security. Socialist Party had 30 people in Congress at the height of its power. A credible 'extremist' party, with sufficient vote to swing the election, is a requirement for serious political change. We better get one quick. Lew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Neil Dickey > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 1999 6:19 PM > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Cutting our losses > > > roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: > > >Folks, there seems to be a bit of argument about the viability of third > >Party candidates and the Parties themselves, so excuse me for > sticking my, > >*ahem*, in the works, too. > > As most of us are aware, this "discussion" has been going on, ad nauseum, > for years, and with no end in sight. > > >First, the only 3rd Party to take over another Parties place in this > >Country, was The Republican Party, and the Party they took over from, was > >the Whigs. At that time, the Whig Party had all but Officially disbanded > >their organization, and didn't even field any Candidates that > year. Before > >a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the > >Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate > >with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it > >_first_. > > An additional point worth making here is that the major reason > the then-new > Republican Party was successful in the election of 1860 is because the > Democratic Party had very considerately torn itself apart for the > occasion. > The fragments nominated three different candidates for President, with the > result that the Republicans won the electoral college with rather > less than > a majority of the popular vote. Those who are on their way to > Nirvana over > the possibility of a third-party conservative run for the Presidency might > wish to give this example some thought. The Republicans didn't > so much "take > over" from the Whigs, as had the contest handed to them by the > fatally divided > Democrats. > > Disclaimer: Nothing I have said here should be construed in any way as an > indication of support for any traitorous Republocrat or Demublican. I bow > reflexively before the wisdom contained in the observation that > there is no > difference whatever between them twa'. I merely offer an example > from history. > He who hath ears to hear, let him hear. > > The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, > unless other- > wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by > inertia and | > | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed > and | > | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. > | > | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. > Churchill | > | **Finger for public key** | > | > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jul 99 20:12:04 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #144 (3/3) (fwd) On Jul 17, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] been more than twice the price tag for defeating Germany and Japan in World War II. "The $6.98 Trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the U.S. For $6.98 Trillion one could purchase every factory and all the manufacturing equipment, with enough money left over to purchase every airline, railroad, trucking firm, the entire commercial maritime fleet, every telephone, television, and radio company, every power company, every hotel, and every retail and wholesale store in the nation" That's some very expensive votes! Incidentally, $6.98 Trillion would be more than enough money to give every welfare family a cash payoff of a million bucks. It would have also paid 6,980,000 skilled trade union jobs for 25 years. We'll investigate where all the money went some other time. THE LEGALITY OF INCOME TAX By: Larry Becraft becraft@hiwaay.net The recent renewed interest in the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment has drawn some comments that the amendment legally did nothing: in the words of the Supreme Court, the amendment did not confer any new taxing powers. Based on this statement of the Supreme Court, some contend that this issue is meaningless. Those who believe this are mistaken and do not understand what the Supreme Court has decided in the series of cases regarding the income tax. Under the United States Constitution, Congress can impose two types of taxes: direct taxes, which must be apportioned via the census, and indirect taxes which must be uniform. Before the Supreme Court's decision in the Pollock case, the Court had determined that income taxes imposed upon the income of public officials were excise taxes which need not be apportioned, but only uniform. But things changed with the decision of the Court in Pollock. At issue in the 1894 Pollock case was the question of whether income from real property (land) and personal property (stocks and bonds) could be subjected to a federal income tax via a law which was not apportioned. In Pollock, the Court held that a tax upon the income from land was a direct tax. Clearly, Congress could tax the income from land and has always had that power, provided the tax was apportioned, which is extremely difficult. However, since the 1894 federal income tax was uniform and not apportioned, it was held unconstitutional. Even today, it would be virtually impossible to apportion an income tax on land. If you wish to read the first Pollock decision, it is posted on FindLaw at: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/157/429.html After the first Pollock decision and in response to a petition for rehearing, the Court had to determine the remaining question of whether taxes on the income from personal property were also direct taxes which must be apportioned. Again, the Court concluded that an income tax on the income from personal property could only be taxed via an apportioned tax. If you wish to read the opinion of the Pollock Court on rehearing, it is also posted at FindLaw: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/158/601.html In summary, the Pollock Court held that, while Congress has always had the power to tax incomes from real and personal property, such taxes had to be apportioned; an uniform income tax could not tax such income. Once this is understood, the meaning of the above statements about "no new taxing power" becomes clear. However, the Supreme Court in Pollock held the whole 1894 federal income tax void. A decision simply invalidating the 1894 income tax insofar as it concerned the income from real and personal property would have left the tax to be borne entirely by "professions and occupations" and the Court determined that Congress would not have adopted the 1894 tax if the tax was invalid as to incomes from real and personal property. For this reason, the whole act was voided. Go to http://www.uhuh.com/laws/pollock.htm to find that part of the decision in the Pollock case which so held. Based upon the decision in Pollock, the 16th Amendment is absolutely essential to enable Congress to impose an uniform tax upon incomes from real and personal property, contrary to the popular beliefs of some. Without the amendment, Congress could not impose uniform taxes upon the income of real and personal property. But further, if the 16th Amendment were declared today to be void because of the defects discovered by Bill Benson, income taxes on the income of real and personal property would fall. But it does not stop there. Clearly just like the Pollock Court observed, Congress would not have imposed this tax to be borne entirely by the professions and occupations if the taxes on income from real and personal property were constitutionally invalid. Thus everyone should have an interest in the question of the ratification of the 16th Amendment. - ----------------------------- [Editor's notes on background] Larry Becraft is a practicing attorney. Anyone with an avid interest in federalism and Constitutional law will find a gold mine of research completed on the "BeCraft Briefs" web page at: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft Joseph Banister, CPA, was a special Agent (criminal investigator) in the Department of the Treasury, IRS Criminal Investigation Division. While working for the IRS, he became unable to resolve conflicts between the way the IRS administered the Federal Income Tax laws and his oath of office. So, he resigned from the IRS. All taxpayers should download a copy of his "Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report." The report is very enlightening! http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/ Bill Conklin is a paralegal and tax consultant who has 6 published wins against the IRS in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is author of "Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns and What You Can Do About It," another very interesting text. http://www.anti-irs.com Devvy Kidd, popular author, activist and very nice lady, has a very informative web page at: http://www.devvy.com/index.html Recently, Devvy and Larry Becraft formed The Wallace Institute. More information on The Wallace Institute can be found at: http://www.devvy.com/wallace.html While there, please pay close attention to the "Brochure" and "IRS KO: Long 1 IRS 0" sections. Bill Benson is the author of "The Law That Never Was." Check out some of his reasoning in a letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/uncerlt2.htm ~ End ~ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:43:25 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Cutting our losses > >>My post to another list..... > >>Before >>a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the >>Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate >>with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it >>_first_. > > [deletions for brevity] > >"We're well on the way if we don't blow it..."? > >I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you think "we're well on >the way" to making the Democrats something no one wants to even associate >with. I just don't see it, or anything even close to it. > >The Democrats are not factional, like the Whigs were. They vote as a fairly >solid block. I don't think they are likely to fragment and fall apart, >creating a party vacuum for a 3P to step into. > Harry, I agree totally. If anything, the Dem's are a much stronger coalition then they were 10 years ago. I see the Dem's as being a rallying party for diehards who are dependent upon the government - the county and municipal workers, the Federal workers, welfare recipients, various random social workers. This is a core constituency that will *never* go away. Blacks are another core constituency that will never go away, as are union members. The fact is that the Republicans are less focused, less able to politically maneuver, and have elevated mediocrities like Lott and Hastert into positions of power. 'W' is just another example of the R's screwing up. Last time they stuck with Dole, even though he was a horrible campaigner, now they are elevating "W" way too early. I think that a third party effort is by definition going to draw from disatisfied factions of the R's. Maybe a pure populist candidated could pull a small portion of D's - mainly disatisfied lefties. I'm very discouraged about *any* of these guys dismantling the overreaching Federal guv. I think we are going to be living in the stranglehold of power-grubbing mediocrities for a long time. ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:44:10 -0700 From: Chris Ferris Subject: SATIRE: Gore Announces Operation "Disarm Police-Disarm America" (THIS IS A SATIRE) New York (Disassociated Press) - Vice President Al Gore said last Sunday that mandatory disarmament of local, county and state law enforcement officers will be only the first step in removing handguns deemed unsafe by attorneys suing firearms manufacturers from the highways and streets of America's states, cities, towns, villages and hamlets to be or not to be. Backed up by a choir of Barney (I love you-you love me) theme song singing Empire State police chiefs wearing purple dinosaur suits and carrying holsters and magazine carriers stuffed only with bags of Skittles and Snickers bars, Gore told a cheering crowd of classic New York control freak liberals, "Fellow 'beautiful beople', it makes good sense to begin removing handguns from our society by having law enforcement officers set the example for the unwashed masses who possess handguns lawfully and for criminals who misuse unlawfully possessed handguns to follow." Gore continued, "So, starting next week, local police chiefs, county sheriffs and directors of state police agencies nationwide will be holding mandatory roll calls at which all of their commissioned officers will be required to surrender their issued duty handguns and any off-duty handguns registered with their respective departments. Various federal agencies have been tasked to monitor this disarmament of local, county and state law enforcement agencies. And I want to take a moment to offer special praise to and adhesive gold stars for the foreheads of over fifty police chiefs throughout the State of New York who rushed to beat the deadline by being among the first progressive police executives to sign up gleefully to remove handguns, dangerous weapons each and every one, from the unworthy hands of their untrustworthy officers. Well done! First, we'll deal with police officers, then, we'll move on to the general public!" Flanked by a giggling gaggle of chanting Congressional Clintonistas wearing brightly colored "Disarm Police-Disarm America" T-shirts, Gore continued, "Since we know with certainty that law enforcement officers possess and carry registered handguns, their holsters, office desks, equipment lockers, department armories and home gun safes are the logical places for us to empty out first as we begin Operation 'Disarm Police-Disarm America' in the near future. We are hopeful that all law enforcement officers affected will cooperate fully with this critical effort to promote public safety, to stop 'gun violence', and, most of all, to protect the children of this nation from the mere presence of dangerous handguns. Once all local, county and state law enforcement officers have no further access to handguns, we are quite confident that law abiding citizens and criminals who possess unregistered handguns will learn the words to 'We Are The World' and, celebrating diversity by holding hands and singing in three part harmony, will march down to designated 'Disarm Police-Disarm America' handgun surrender locations and turn in their handguns for destruction." Most shocked and stunned local, county and state police officers contacted for reaction to Operation "Disarm Police-Disarm America" refused to comment. However, one anonymous deputy sheriff in a rural county of a Western state responded, "Surrender my handguns to those clowns in Washington, D.C.? Ha! Have you ever wondered why Gore and Clinton don't hold anti-gun 'flanked by fat bleacher cops' press conferences out West or in any other rural part of America? Because out here, gun ownership is freedom, and vice versa, and Gore and Clinton had better damn well not forget it." When asked for his reaction to Gore's initiative in disarming the nation's police officers, Presidential candidate Bill Bradley countered, "Hey, I want one of those 'Disarm Police-Disarm America' T-shirts, size XXXL!" Representatives of various pro-Second Amendment organizations merely smiled when asked to offer opinions about Gore's bold move to empty street cops' holsters all across the U.S.A. (THIS IS A SATIRE) - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 99 09:51:16 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Cutting our losses On Jul 17, Harry E. Barnett wrote: >Bill Vance said: >>My post to another list..... > > >[snip] > >>Before >>a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the >>Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate >>with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it >>_first_. > > >Bill, your declaration, "but we have to do it first" I accept without >argument. True enough. But... > >"We're well on the way if we don't blow it..."? > >Bill, if I didn't know better, I would say you've been smoking rope. No, "el Ropo's", aren't on my shopping list.....:-) >I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you think "we're well on >the way" to making the Democrats something no one wants to even associate >with. I just don't see it, or anything even close to it. The growth of the 3P's are a prime indicator of disatisfaction with _both_ Parties, not just one of them. THere's a whole lot of folks out there, that are flat ashamed to admit that they voted for Clinton et al. It's not as fast as I'd like it, but a lot of folks are getting wise to the Demo's little games, and the GOP's as well. >The Democrats are not factional, like the Whigs were. They vote as a fairly >solid block. I don't think they are likely to fragment and fall apart, >creating a party vacuum for a 3P to step into. Perhaps not, but there are cracks in the dam. Not all of their factions are as homogenous as you might think. Look at the way the Animal Rights and Enviro whackos tear into each other from time to time. We should be working to widen the gaps wherever possible. >Furthermore, the Whig Party self-destructed over an issue which had facets >of morality, factions, sectionalism, and economics: slavery. Morality and >character are not even part of the equation with the Democrats and about >two-thirds of the electorate. (This is NOT to say the Republicans are any >better.) What internal factions the Democrats have vote together for "party >harmony" because they recognize it is all about POWER. They realize that if >they want to keep power, want to be "The Law", they have to be a solid gang, >with the loyalty of a mafia, a cosa nostra, and they are successful at this >with a vengeance. Current sectionalism is nothing like, and nowhere near >approaching the degree of the U.S. North-West-South sectionalism of the >mid-nineteenth century. And as long as the electorate believes the >Democrats are responsible for the "booming economy", economic dysfunction >necessary to provide fertile ground for a 3P is not in the cards. And this is causing the 3P ranks swell as never before. It's not happening fast, but it is happening. >In fact, I think a good argument could be made for, "We're well on our way >to an oligarchy posturing as a two-party system," and we turned the corner >in that direction in 1995-1996 after the '94 elections, even though we could >have gone either way then. Neither of the parties subscribe to the >principle, "Everyone is equal before the law," as if "The Law" had some >embodiment outside their persons and subjective feelings. "L'Etat, c'est >moi," is closer to their approach. They are simply quarrelling between >themselves which party is to be legally recognized as, "The State". And in a Country created by, "Enemies Of The State", too. That reminds me, if you happen upon, "An Ememy Of The State", or it's update, "The LaNague Chronicles", by F. Paul Wilson, you might find some interesting ideas. Some of it's a bit idealistic, but they're a good read regardless. >The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and "The Law" as >non-subjective abstract concept to which everyone is accountable is a >strange and foreign concept to them, and as partisan institutions, they both >respond with a total lack of comprehension when anyone tries to remind them >that is what made this country unique when it started out. The number of >citizens understanding the importance of this concept is dwindling year by >year. The number of civilians populating the Federal government, or even >State, Regional, or local government, is nearly completely barren of such >citizens. > >So I just don't see this, "We're well on the way," thing. Perhaps I should have said, "well started". >FWIW. I hope you can tell me why I'm wrong. I can't say that you are completely right or wrong here. Things are in flux always, as they are here, but there are indications everywhere. N. Carolina refusing to give up Beauregard's Battle Flag, (the Stars and Bars) as their State Flag, graduation ceremonies in which only a moment of silence is mandated, has one person starting it, and suddenly the whole audience is reciting the Lord's Prayer, these examples go on and on. A whole lot of folks are starting to wake up, and they're just not puting up with the crap anymore. These things too, are happening slowly, but all together, they're happening more and more, building eventually a momentum all their own. There is hope, and wherever possible, it should be encouraged. If it weren't for folks who just keep plugging along no matter what, nothing would get accomplished. If you don't think things can be turned around, how do you explain all those anguished howls over that Initiative(X) thats going to limit vehicle registration to $30 while putting _all_ tax increases up to a vote of the people? >Harry Barnett > >-- harryb@hbbse.com >-- "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for >the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a >government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public >opinion should be enlightened." G. Washington, Farewell Address, 1796. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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 #259 *************************