From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #262 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, July 24 1999 Volume 02 : Number 262 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 99 09:11:05 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FWD: A UN gun-control seminar... (2/2) (fwd) On Jul 23, Mikey wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ,=20 or baseball bats. Oh yeah? How about this image: a hunter stalking a deer=20 armed only with a carving knife. A duckshooter in his hide in the middle of = a=20 lake, whisky in one hand and baseball bat in the other. Sorry. Guns are more lethal than most things we know. The shooters know that= .=20 And in their heart of hearts, they also know that guns are the instruments=20 which allow even children to kill. Then the discussion moves to the media. All those awful movies =96 and they = are=20 awful =96 teaching our kids to kill. But those same movies are shown in Japa= n,=20 Canada, Singapore and New Zealand. And we don't kill with firearms at nearly=20 the same rate. Could that be because our societies are not so saturated with=20 guns? It certainly seems to be the case that our entertainment and news media make=20 guns desirable. But it's only our gun laws which make them available. Withou= t=20 a gun, surely there can be no shooting. Our next speaker is one academic to recognise that the gun on the hip of a=20 mercenary in West Africa is conceivably just one serial number away from the=20 gun found loaded in a nightstand in Idaho, then used by a curious five=20 year-old to blow away his younger sister. Guns don't come from the cabbage patch. They're manufactured in quiet valley= s=20 in Connecticut and the Caucasus, smart industrial parks in Austria and=20 Brazil. And almost without exception, each of them begins life as a=20 legitimate, legal gun. >From the Program on General Disarmament at Maryland University, Natalie=20 Goldring. NATALIE GOLDRING It's worth saying again. Almost without exception, every illicit gun starts=20 out as a legal gun. Eventually, a criminal may acquire that weapon. But it's=20 the licensed dealer or the lawful gun owner who provides the gun.=20 Whether it's by sale, by neglect or by theft, the transfer from the legal to=20 the illegal market is by definition performed by a so-called law-abiding gun=20 owner. Recently there's been much discussion of disarming the "black hats" while no= t=20 offending the "white hats." Some gun owners insist that they can always be=20 relied upon not to abuse their weapons, that because they were entrusted wit= h=20 guns at some point in the past they will by definition remain risk-free in=20 the future. Whether such a theory is applied to police officers, demobilised=20 soldiers, hobby hunters, householders keeping guns for violent retribution o= r=20 indeed national governments, this has proved to be an unrealistic expectatio= n. To a trauma surgeon delving into gunshot wounds in Cape Town or Melbourne, i= t=20 matters little if the weapon was fired by a law-abiding husband or a mobster= ,=20 whether it was military in appearance or had previously been used only to=20 shoot pigeons. Be it by accident, suicide, crime or conflict, the damage don= e=20 to the victim, family and wider society is likely to be much the same. And the guns all came from the same gun makers, and we know who they are. Our next speaker is very close to the grass-roots. He sees the damage done=20 with guns on a daily basis. From Gun Free South Africa, he's here to tell us=20 what works in his community. Joseph Dube. JOSEPH DUBE It is undeniably important to address the root causes of violence, conflict=20 and injury. At the same time, we must focus on the instruments of violence.=20 Most gun control advocates follow the public health model. Put simply, this=20 maintains that guns are to gun violence as mosquitoes are to malaria. We acknowledge that firearms do not in themselves cause violence. But=20 regardless of the context =96 crime, conflict, domestic assault, suicide =96 = guns=20 do increase the severity of violence, the number of victims and the potentia= l=20 for children to become killers. It's very true that guns don't kill. It's the bullets which do that. But no matter which facile slogan is used, if neither a gun nor a bullet is=20 to hand, surely no shooting can occur. Thank you. Date: 6/28/99 [------------------------- 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, 23 Jul 99 09:11:46 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FWD: A UN gun-control seminar... (1/2) (fwd) On Jul 23, Mikey wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hague Appeal for Peace seminar The Hague, Netherlands 14 May 1999 Moderator's remarks=20 Philip Alpers Coalition for Gun Control, New Zealand Good evening. Thank you all for choosing gun violence, and we do appreciate=20 that you had a choice of seminars. My name is Philip Alpers, and I'm an advocate of gun control. I'm a New=20 Zealander, and that means that I come from a country where even the police d= o=20 not wear guns. Not many others are so fortunate. Our speakers this evening represent=20 countries which are saturated with guns (South Africa, the United States),=20 across the spectrum to those which have banned many guns, either partly (as=20 in Canada, Australia and New Zealand) or entirely, as has happened with=20 handguns in Britain. I'm sorry to say that three countries are only represented here in their=20 absence. The official programme promised Wendy Cukier from Canada, Rebecca=20 Peters from Australia and Gill Marshall-Andrews from England. Due to the=20 pressure of work and other commitments, all three women were forced to send=20 their apologies. It's said that about 300,000 people are killed with small arms in conflict=20 every year. What's often neglected is that, according to United Nations=20 figures, an additional 200,000 are killed with firearms every year in=20 situations which have nothing to do with warfare. Not all of these are=20 murders. Some of them are suicides, and some are accidents. But I've yet to=20 meet a gun control advocate (or a parent) who sees suicide, or a child's=20 accidental death by firearm, as somehow less tragic or less preventable than=20 a gun murder.=20 Of course some shootings are far more mediagenic than others. When a mass=20 killing happens in a city with a lot of TV cameras (like Littleton, Colorado= )=20 it's a tragedy. But it pays to remember that for every victim shot dead in a=20 mass killing, about 49 others are killed with a gun in a tragedy which is=20 less attractive to the editors of the evening news.=20 As with rape, gun violence suffers from the myth of "stranger danger."=20 Another thing it pays to remember is that for every victim killed by a=20 stranger wielding a gun, many, many more =9695% in some countries =96 are ki= lled=20 by someone they know. Often the killer is an estranged, or a current partner= .=20 If you want to know the truth about firearm-related killings, one of the mor= e=20 accurate gun control posters simply reads: "The person most likely to kill=20 you with a gun already has a key to your home." Our first speaker hails from a land which provides an object lesson =96=20 sometimes good, sometimes not-so-good =96 to all of us. Michael Beard was=20 working with Martin Luther King's speechwriter at the time King was shot. He=20 was on the campaign trail for John F Kennedy, and then for Bobby Kennedy,=20 when they were both shot.=20 With 30 years in gun control advocacy, Michael has spent most of my lifetime=20 working for sanity in American gun laws. There aren't many people better=20 placed to tell us what's going on in America today. From the Coalition to=20 Stop Gun Violence in Washington DC, Michael Beard. MICHAEL BEARD Here I'd like to say a word about a new initiative in America. It's called=20 the Bell Campaign=20 This is one of the most exciting things I've seen in my seven years in gun=20 control. With 4.3 million dollars already raised from a single initial grant= ,=20 the Bell Campaign is a national grass-roots movement modelled on Mothers=20 Against Drunk Driving. Like MADD, it's inspired and driven by the passion of=20 the victims of gun violence. These astonishing people can say things that those of us who haven't lost=20 loved ones never could. Take Mary Leigh Blek of Orange County.=20 Died-in-the-wool Republican, Mary Leigh and her husband Charlie lost a son t= o=20 gun violence. Ever since then, the Bleks have spent most of their waking=20 hours campaigning for gun control in one of the staunchest enclaves of=20 conservatism in America. The week before last, up in Denver, Colorado and at the door to the NRA=20 convention, Mary Leigh said two things I remember. First: "It's a lot easier to childproof a gun than it is to bullet-proof a child" And then, speaking directly to the gun lobby, Mary Leigh said: "Your love for your guns is no match for our love for our children." In a series of videotaped interviews, I recently asked the Bleks and all the=20 other founding board members of the Bell Campaign the same question: "As you=20 go about campaigning for gun control, is your child alongside you?" Without exception, every one of them said yes. Most of them said it through=20 tears. For these people =96 and thank God for them and for their courage =96 = gun=20 control advocacy has become an important part of healing. Or, if healing is=20 not possible, then it's just an important part of going on. I'm confident that these are the people who will transform what's become a=20 stale argument. Just as they did with the landmine campaign. Just as they di= d=20 with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The survivors, the victims of gun=20 violence are an extraordinary breed.=20 Here's one of them. Our next speaker is Dr Mick North, from the Gun Control=20 Network, in Scotland. MICK NORTH After 14 women were shot to death at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, it took=20 nine years to enact stringent new gun control legislation in Canada.=20 After 16 children and their teacher were shot to death at Dunblane Primary=20 School, it took 12 days for British Prime Minister John Major to announce=20 tough new gun laws. A year and a half later, the incoming Labour government=20 enacted even stronger restrictions than the Tories had intended. After 35 people were killed by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania, it=20 took Australia's Prime Minister John Howard 12 days to broker an agreement=20 between the states for the most successful civilian disarmament programme of=20 recent times. Nearly 700,000 guns were given up by their owners, crushed, an= d=20 then thrown into smelters. If an equivalent result had been achieved in=20 America, 40 million guns would have been removed from circulation. We have a dreadful habit of talking about our gun laws only in the three or=20 four days after each massacre. It's sick, it's odious, but nowadays only the=20 very worst multiple killings generate sustained discussion of gun control = =96=20 let alone new laws. And the discussion far too often moves away from the point. We're told that=20 if guns hadn't been available, the killings could have been done with knives= [------------------------- 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, 23 Jul 99 21:16:20 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Re: The Filibuster Is * On * (fwd) On Jul 23, Huck wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Ok people, here's one we can win too. Remember this, without those firearms and the 2nd. Amendment, you can forget all the rest. Everything you need to do is contained in this e-mail. All we are talking about here is the tools to maintain our freedom a little longer! And yes, this most definitely applies to Y2K and after. Even if you don't personally believe in having guns around for your own use, we need your help if America is to remain free. Huck Gun Owners of America wrote: > Senator Smith Throws Down the Gauntlet! > -- Stands up to Trent Lott by forcing filibuster on anti-gun crime > bill > > Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 > http://www.gunowners.org > > (Friday, July 23, 1999) -- Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has set > the Senate wheels in motion for a series of votes to stop Senator > Bob Smith's filibuster on the juvenile crime legislation. The first > vote has been set for Monday, July 26. > > So far, Senator Smith (I-NH) has prevented any progress on the > anti-gun crime bill by promising to use the ancient art of > "filibuster." Yesterday, that promise became reality when Smith > objected to a motion by Sen. Lott to move the bill along. > > This is truly a David v. Goliath stand-off. The Senate leadership, > led by the Majority Leader, is trying to roll Senator Smith and > bring his delaying tactics to an end. > > Of course, Senator Lott must first clear at least six parliamentary > "hurdles" that have been erected by Senator Smith. > > The key vote will occur on Wednesday or Thursday when the Senate > will determine whether the Gore/Lautenberg gun control crime bill > (S. 254) will move forward. > > That vote will be on an effort to shut down debate on Sen. Smith's > filibuster-- known in Washington as "invoking cloture" on the > filibuster-- and will decide whether Sen. Lott can substitute the > virulently anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) in lieu of the crime bill > that was passed by the House. > > Eventually, Senator Lott wants to send the crime legislation to a > House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences > between the two bills. But that can only come after he's cleared > the Smith "hurdles"-- a process that should take several days. Lott > can clear each one of these hurdles with a 60-vote majority in the > Senate. > > If that happens, President Clinton will be one step closer to > signing a crime bill that is replete with gun bans and gun owner > registration. > > But if our side gets 41 votes at any point along the way, then > Senate rules will allow Smith to continue filibustering the bill-- > which could entail his standing on the Senate floor and reading long > passages from a library of pro-gun literature. You may want to tape > this from C-Span and label it "Second Amendment books on tape by > Senator Smith." > > Smith is willing to do that. He is committed to doing whatever it > takes to defend the 2nd Amendment. But he needs 40 other Senators > to stand with him! > > Again, Monday's vote will begin a whole series of votes on this > issue. Each one is slightly different, and GOA will do its best to > keep you informed as to what is coming down the pike. > > Until then, please start asking your Senators to support the Smith > filibuster. > > Senator Smith is without question THE defender of 2nd Amendment > rights in the Senate. Tell your Senator that you would like him or > her to follow Smith's lead on the upcoming series of votes. > > CONTACT INFORMATION: > > * Toll-free at 1-888-449-3511. [Please be patient when calling > this number; sometimes it rings for quite a while. But they will > answer!] > * The regular Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121. > * Fax and e-mail contact info is available at > http://www.gunowners.org/s106th.htm on the GOA webpage. > > P.S. There has been quite a bit of confusion in the media as to > what is actually transpiring on Monday. Some in the media are > reporting that Monday's vote is about the appointment of Senate > conferees. This is incorrect. Technically speaking, the purpose > for Monday's vote in the Senate is to bring up the House crime bill > (H.R. 1501) for debate. As stated above, Lott eventually wants to > appoint conferees, but that will only happen if he can overcome > every Smith filibuster. > > ************** > Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if > you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online > store. > > ************** > Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to > date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail > Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the > volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to > goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in > either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert > and ask to be removed. [------------------------- 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, 24 Jul 99 19:45:44 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #145 (1/3) (fwd) On Jul 24, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 25, 1999 #145 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- CONGRESS DOES NOT UNDERSTAND The House Appropriations Committee reported on a little waste, fraud, abuse, and misappropriation of funds by the Pentagon last week and the resultant remarks by Committee members are very funny, under the circumstances. In a July 22 piece in the New York Times by Tim Weiner; "Pentagon Misused Millions in Funds, House Panel Says," the report was quoted as saying: "This committee is little short of amazed" by the business as usual attitude of bureaucrats. "Congress says in a new report that the Pentagon defied the law and the Constitution by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on military projects that lawmakers never approved, including a super-secret Air Force program. The Pentagon acknowledged some of the accusations Wednesday night, saying honest mistakes led to its failure to notify Congress about the way it was spending money." Apparently, the House Appropriations Committee expressed "anger" and "astonishment," saying "the practice had eroded trust between the nation's lawmakers and military commanders." Chairman of the defense spending subcommittee, Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), said the Pentagon's actions showed its belief "that it can even move money to a program Congress has closed down, maybe presuming, 'Oh, well, nobody will know'" attitude. "What do we have to do to make them understand what we mean when we say no?" Lewis asked. Great question, and we will address that shortly. . . . "The Constitution is pretty clear on this," Lewis said. It says: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law." Normally, that would mean that Pentagon cannot spend money unless Congress authorizes and appropriates it for specific programs. However, it also means that Congress may only appropriate funds for those reasons authorized by the Constitution. Inconvenient, that. Anyway, Pentagon spokesman, Kenneth H. Bacon, said, "We work very hard to respond to the directives Congress gives us. Do we get it right 100 percent of the time? Of course not." But sure, everyone admits, they spent a little unauthorized money on military trucks, missiles and tanks. So, OK, the Air Force wrongfully started and financed a highly classified, still-secret project known as a "black program" without informing Congress. And, yeah, the Air Force tried to buy an $800 million military communications satellite without Congressional authority, and illegally diverted hundreds of millions of dollars to update its C-5 transport plane. So what? If Congress expects anyone else to respect and obey its legislation, perhaps it should first set an example by honoring and respecting its job description: Our Constitution. That would mean not legislating on those matters not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution -- and especially those matters forbidden to it, such as speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms. Then, we could ask where the gold and silver coin is that the Constitution calls for, why our borders are not protected against a constant onslaught of contraband and illegal aliens and where they found the authority to inflict seventy-some thousand armed regulators on the American people. Congress has become a major usurper of our rights to life, liberty and property. They now think they may pass all laws on all matters. Today's Congress acts more like an out of control State Legislature than a national legislature. Congress invents new rights and entitlements for some, then trashes those fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to everyone. No Member of Congress knows all federal laws. That would be impossible because there are too many. Yet, they keep making more. Nor does any person in government know all laws, rules and regulations. There are too many for any one person to know and understand. Yet, the sickening fact is that every American citizen is required to obey each and every law, rule and regulation. So, the cold hard fact is that few people respect federal law. They tolerate them because the federal government has so many guns, but respect of the law has waned significantly in the last few decades. And that, Lords and Ladies of Capitol Hill, came about as a result of a very easy to understand unintended consequence: When the volume of law enacted by government far exceeds the ability of the governed to comprehend, there is, in effect, no law. The unexpected consequence, then, is selective tyranny. Selective tyranny is exactly what we see today. Therefore, Congress should not find it "amazing" when their decrees are not obeyed. Disobedience has become more the rule than the exception. It is no longer possible to function adequately in society without violating some federal law, rule or regulation everyday. The many continuing antics of the Clinton administration are no more than well published examples. Violations are pervasive throughout society. A VERY DANGEROUS LAME DUCK Even most Democrats will now admit that everything (they can remember) Bill Clinton told us during his first presidential campaign was a lie. Nothing ever improved, either. From the inauguration on, things went progressively down hill with the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team. Lies led to a steady dose of White House treachery and perjury, sexual abuse, campaign fraud, money laundering, defamation of character, more perjury, and then an impeachment. And now, at long, long last we see the end of it all and he is a lame duck president. [------------------------- 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, 24 Jul 99 19:44:07 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #145 (3/3) (fwd) On Jul 24, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] 858 F.2d 345, 350 (6th Cir. 1988); and Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1486 (3rd Cir. 1990). That's right folks, behavior once classed as boorish is now deemed illegal. The law requires that opinions not be expressed. And, in effect, it relates to both thought and speech. Such is our current law. Designed for tighter control of the American people. An official U.S. Department of Labor pamphlet defines harassment as including cases where "[s]omeone made sexual jokes or said sexual things that you didn't like," with no requirement that the jokes be insulting or even misogynistic. Actually, nowadays the "offended person" does not even have to be present for the speech to be illegal. That is, speech can be punished as harassment even if it isn't overheard by anyone who is offended. Consider Schwapp v. Town of Avon, a Second Circuit case which held that: "[T]he fact that a plaintiff learns second-hand of a racially derogatory comment or joke by a fellow employee or supervisor also can impact the work environment . . ." And, the fact was, Schwapp didn't even work there during some of the incidents he complained about, nor were any of them directed at or about him. However, all of the above only pertains to us working folks. Because, as usual, the controlling elite live under a totally different set of laws. As a recent example, there is the Jones v. Clinton case in which Judge Susan Webber Wright held that it isn't sexual harassment for an employer to expose himself indecently to an employee and explicitly ask her for sexual services. Such is the so called "rule of law" in these United States today. "Congress shall make no law," except when it wants to. The courts and the regulatory bureaucracy then expand on the law, no matter how unconstitutional it may be. But, certain people get a free pass on most laws, so they don't care. NEWS THEY FORGOT LAST WEEK Michael Medved strikes out with the truth again: The "line between news and entertainment has been obliterated in our television-obsessed culture and that is because of the nature of the medium." "Infotainment," he called the news once. They "report" what incidents they want us to know, with the spin they want us to believe, and call it news. TV (and most radio) news is becoming a waste of time to watch. More and more, it has become little more than tabloid shows, written by liberals and for liberals. So, it was no surprise that America had to suffer days of babble about the Kennedy tragedy. And, a tragedy it was. He was one of the better Kennedys. Still, let's put this "news" in its proper prospective: If an adult male takes two people out for a ride on one of the darkest nights of the year, finds his headlights do not work, yet speeds down a winding country road anyway, we would call that negligence. If that same adult male is only trained for visual flying and takes those same friends up in his new airplane on that same dark night, flies over water where there are zero in the way of lights or other markers with which to get a correct visual prospective, is that less than negligence? The media loves the Kennedys. Some Americans still like the Kennedys. Therefore no one brings up the little point of where most of the Kennedy's wealth came from -- Joe Kennedy Sr.'s connections to the mob. The Kennedy money came from organized crime activities. In today's vernacular, Joe Kennedy would be labeled as an organized crime kingpin. But, the media likes the Kennedys, so that makes everything copacetic. In other news, California's Socialist-Democratic Governor, Gray Davis, showed his strong authoritative side and disdain for our Constitutional rights by signing into law what is called "the toughest gun ban in the nation." They say it is "aimed at restricting assault weapons." Actually, it is little more than a control thing. A gross abuse of power. "Californians can proudly claim they have the toughest civil weapons law in the nation," he told a news conference in San Francisco. Sure. Take guns away from law abiding citizens so it's easier for street punks to rob them at will. That's the socialist way of getting their foot in the door for stricter people control laws later. In Washington, Representative Michael Forbes (NY) quit the Republican Party to move in with the Social- Democrats. Turns out there were some honorable people working for him, though. His staff said he had betrayed them and their party, so nearly the entire staff in Forbes' Washington and New York offices resigned. Good for them! He deserved it. However, others in Washington don't feel that way about principles. Principles, to most of the Lords and Ladies on the Hill, are directly related to only one thing: Campaign contributions. So, when Senator Bob Smith moved away from the Republican Party, they got all bent out of shape. Smith makes some very good points, though. The Republican Party is quickly moving away from a lot of us. This new round of unconstitutional gun legislation is but one of the well publicized indicators. Over in New York, The New York Post reported that New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) "won't run for the U.S. Senate if he's challenged in the GOP primary" next year by Congressman Rick Lazio (R-NY). Maybe so, and we hope it's true. Hillary may not run, either. It looks like she's just in it to collect money, and probably so she can take advantage of being treated like the queen bee while Bill is still in office. When Bill Clinton is out, so is she. She knows that in 2001 her job prospectives are zilch. The Clintons will be quickly dumped into the dustbin of history, with popularity ratings somewhere between that of Garfield and Carter. There are some very well placed bureaucrats gearing up to release a lot of juicy information on those two, just as soon as they are out of power. It seems that former Mayor of Cincinnati and current TV talk show host Jerry Springer plans to run for U.S. Senator. That's an idea currently spouted by Ohio Democratic Party leaders. They deserve Springer, too. He fits right in with the Democratic Party's mentality. I mean, this is the kind of politician who is so dumb he paid a street walker with a personal check. Now the Republicans are carping about "public" television and radio stations swapping their membership lists with other socialist political operatives. Come on guys, get real here! Public television and public radio couldn't be any more patrician if they were wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party. Of course they cooperate with liberals in any way possible. They always have. These "Public Broadcasting" stations are part of the liberal PR apparatus. ~ 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: Sat, 24 Jul 99 19:44:51 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #145 (2/3) (fwd) On Jul 24, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] That's what we are all hoping for, anyway. However, like the old man said, "it ain't over till it's over." And folks, it ain't hardly over yet. Now comes Y2K. And Clinton has a whole host of unconstitutional presidential powers -- near limitless powers -- available, including all those War and Emergency Powers an unthinking, wayward Congress incorrectly gave to the administration. Asked if he thought Clinton might use those powers to declare martial law and stay in power, Rep. Jack Metcalf (R-WA) replied: "That is my fear. It seems to me that the only emergency that we might see coming is the Y2K. [And with] a power-hungry president, who knows what he might do." Metcalf has good reason to feel that way, too. Word on the street has it that financial institutions, never a group to worry about the rights of the American people, have already asked the White House for assurances of military protection against any Y2K ramifications -- presumably by angry people. Also, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), who chairs the Senate Y2K task force, has asked the Pentagon what plans it has "in the event of a Y2K-induced breakdown of community services that might call for martial law." The Pentagon indicated they would be ready. Bennett predicts that worldwide Y2K problems are now "inevitable." He fears they will lead to serious economic recession in some parts of the world. And even if all American organizations fix their own computers in time, Bennett said they still face disaster from likely shutdowns of telephones, banking and other services abroad, because it is not likely they will make the required fixes in time. None of that sounds like much of a bother to most American neighborhoods. But, that interesting fact is apparently not important. Bennett concludes contingency plans must be made. Including plans for a national emergency enforced by martial law. A House subcommittee also recommended that President Clinton consider declaring a Y2K "national emergency," which would give Clinton complete dictatorial power over the American people. So, let's take a quick look at this "national emergency" thing: Back in 1973, the Senate studied all the unconstitutional War and Emergency powers available to a president whenever he calls a national emergency, as some lawmakers are now asking him to do. Here is one very informative passage from Senate Report 93-549 of 1973: "This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprises; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." That sounds just like communism. A dictatorship. Even so, since 1973, the War and Emergency powers have been increased and FEMA was formed to act as a Politburo to implement a national emergency. FEMA would then make all laws, rules and regulations and direct enforcement for the duration of the emergency. And, if the Clinton administration is anything like the Roosevelt administration, the "emergency" will never go away. In The Federalist Papers, No. 47, James Madison labels that arrangement thusly: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Under the law, only the president may declare a national emergency, and only the president may end it. We should also remember that this same opportunity was allowed by Article 48 of the German Constitution in the 1930's. Therefore, the German President -- Hitler -- was also able to suspend the Constitution by presidential decree alone. So, is Clinton a lame duck president? That depends. How much do you trust him? Congress has given him the tools to stick around almost indefinitely, as a dictator. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW In the First Amendment to the Constitution, we see the words: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." But Congress, of course, intentionally neglects that which it is mandated to do as being too mundane and replaces the mandates with other things not authorized and even forbidden. So, this seems to be a good time to review a few of the more hilarious ways government regulates our everyday speech. For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just about completed their national speech code. Under the EEOC's speech code, it is illegal to say things they label as "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile or offensive work environment." EEOC has yet to completely define exactly what "severe and pervasive" is, but apparently they know it when they hear it and will prosecute accordingly. However, in the mix of the verboten are those words which are descriptive of race, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status and whatever else they may dream up on a case by case basis. So, according to EEOC, common words used in the workplace like "draftsman" and "foreman" (instead of "draftsperson" and "foreperson") are now illegal. So are "Men Working" signs. And, of course, sexually suggestive jokes are out, even if they are not of a misogynistic variety. Making a joke about "ebonics" is also unlawful according to the federal government. Posting derogatory pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini is illegal, as is commenting on the burning of American flags in Iran. According to one wayward court, that would be classed as "offensive speech implicating considerations of race." The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered recently: "In essence, while [harassment law] does not require an employer to fire all 'Archie Bunkers' in its employ, the law does require that an employer take prompt action to prevent such bigots from expressing their opinions in a way that abuses or offends their co-workers. By informing people that the expression of racist or sexist attitudes in public is unacceptable, people may eventually learn that such views are undesirable in private, as well. Thus, Title VII may advance the goal of eliminating prejudices and biases in our society." That is from: Davis v. Monsanto Chem. Co., [------------------------- 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 #262 *************************