From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #265 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 31 1999 Volume 02 : Number 265 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:38:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: latest Drudge report Gentlefolk: Here's a heads up on the latest Orwellian scheme being propagated by the usual suspects. See www.drudgereport.com in the days ahead for updates. jcurtis - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999 20:28:41 ET XXXXX WHITE HOUSE PROPOSES MASSIVE COMPUTER MONITORING SYSTEM; WILL TRACK BANKING, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER NETWORKS The Clinton administration has developed a plan for an extensive computer monitoring system, overseen by the FBI, that will track banking, telecommunications and other industries, it will be reported on Wednesday. The National Security Council is conducting a legal and technical review of the new Clinton plan, a final report is scheduled to be made public in September. NEW YORK TIMES reporter John Markoff has been shown a draft, according to publishing sources, and was busy on Tuesday afternoon preparing a story. In some government circles, the proposed system has been nicknamed "Hillary." The plan calls for the development of a "sophisticated software system to monitor activities on non-military government networks" and a separate system to "track all transactions used in the banking, telecommunications and transportation industries." The system is intended to alert law enforcement officials to computer attacks that might cripple governmental or the nation's economy. But it could also become a massive government utility used for surveillance of citizens, critics contend, with great potential for misuse. "Law enforcement agencies obviously would be under great temptation to expand the use of the information in pursuit of suspected criminals," the TIMES will report. The plan has drawn fire from civil libertarians because it blends "civilian and military functions" in protecting the nation's computer networks. Law enforcement agencies would be under great temptation to expand the use of the information in pursuit of suspected criminals. And the plan would put a new and powerful tool into the hands of the FBI. Developing. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 11:16:17 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: interesting connections (fwd) On Jul 28, R. Lunn wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Devon g Davis wrote: > An antigun group is partly responsible for fires are Woodstock '99 > > > http://www.alamanceind.com/nation/nation_3.html For those with web problems and who can't read mime attachements: http://www.alamanceind.com/nation/nation_3.html WWW.ALAMANCEIND.COM Matt Maggio, Publisher & Editor Email What do you call any group that hands out over 200,000 candles at the end of a rock-music festival whose name is synonymous with druggy and drunk revelers getting out of hand? The word is irresponsible; a gun-control group did it at Woodstock 99 on Sunday - resulting in mass rioting. Small fires started by concertgoers wielding candles fast converged into a massive inferno - even forcing concert staff to jump from seven-story towers set ablaze. Refrigerated trucks carrying refreshments were set ablaze by stoned, candle-wielding fans. Stoned fans leapt naked through flames. Automatic fire extinguishers trying unsuccessfully to extinguish the fires turned the place into a foggy sea of Halon. New York state police in riot gear battled druggy rioting fans. But the real story of Woodstock 99 was who was responsible for the riots and destruction. PAX, a New York-based gun control group centered in the entertainment industry, was a cosponsor of Woodstock 99, and handed out candles for an antigun protest to every single fan there - when it knew or should have known that most if not almost all those it handed candles to would have been drunk, stoned on dope, or both. PAX did so in full awareness that rock concerts in the U.S. have had a bad history of mass disorders and even fatal riots, so when its executive director and cofounder Dan Gross said that "peace, love and music is what Woodstock is all about," he should have added rioting. And there is no dissociating PAX from Woodstock; PAX's web site lists Woodstock's promoter John Scher as a member of its board of advisers. And who funds groups that hand out candles to a city-size mob in full awareness that most all in it are stoned? Handgun Control, New Jersey CeaseFire, together with such New York elites as Calvin Klein, DKNY Jeans, The Gap Foundation, numerous recording-industry companies, HBO, MTV, and Time-Warner Cable - all are listed by PAX as sponsors on its web site. And who runs an outfit that hands out hundreds of thousands of candles to a horde of people it knew or should have known were stoned? Sarah and James Brady are listed among its advisers on its web site, as is Richard Aborn, former president of Handgun Control. Other listed advisers - other than a fistful of antigun politicians including Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Carolyn McCarthy - are mostly in the entertainment industry, many high executives. Matt Maggio Editor & Publisher All Stories Copyright 1999 Matt Maggio - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. - ----------------------- DVC Regards, >>Dick<< [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:46:44 -0700 From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Another Gun Ban Poll About.com is running a poll about banning guns. Check out http://civilliberty.about.com/library/blgpoll.htm?IN2PID=933219336.026210&IN 2ID=933219336.026210&TMog=11929274144934&Mint=100590962283541 (You may need to paste each line into your web browser.) - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) - --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 99 15:37:26 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: "property ownership is not absolute" (fwd) On Jul 29, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Williams To: Amelu Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 11:23 AM Subject: "property ownership is not absolute" Making noise on private property rights: Landowners increasingly challenge restrictions By Blair Anthony Robertson Bee Staff Writer (Published July 28, 1999) Most days, you=92ll find Ernie Bierwagen out in the orchards. Even at 84,= he always seems eager to work the land he loves. His feet have trampled over all 127 acres of his Nevada County property, = up and down every rolling hill. His calloused hands have pruned the plum trees. This is the land where he was born, where he grew up, married, taught his= five kids to be good stewards of the land. This is where he took out revolving equity loans over the years to cover production costs, rolling the dice that the apples, peaches, pumpkins and= plums would yield enough money to pay back the bank. He=92ll tell you: =93It=92= s riskier than heck.=94 If anyone owns a piece of land it is this man. But lately he has been distracted. Lately, Ernie Bierwagen has become som= ething of a political activist, defeating a proposed local regulation that, amon= g other things, would have told people what color they could have painted their h= ouses and barns. Earth tones only. Bierwagen is one of many frustrated landowners in California and througho= ut the United States joining the ranks of the private property rights movement. = By some estimates, there are 2,000 or more groups large and small, with names lik= e Defenders of Property Rights and American Land Rights Association. Sacramento is home to one of the key players in the movement, the Pacific= Legal Foundation, which for years has battled government agencies in court on b= ehalf of property owners. Bierwagen started Concerned Citizens for 174, a reference to the highway = the Nevada County Board of Supervisors wanted to designate as scenic, placing= new restrictions on property owners in the process. He printed 250 placards, = wrote op-ed pieces in the local paper, spoke out on the radio. =93I=92ve spent the last four months on this,=94 Bierwagen said over lunc= h at the homey restaurant he owns, the Happy Apple Kitchen, =93because I believe i= n what George Washington believed, what Patrick Henry believed=97that to submit = to tyranny makes you no different than the tyrants.=94 Property rights advocates are making more and more noise in Nevada County= and beyond. On occasion, some groups are winning key legal battles, though bo= th sides agree that legislation has largely gone against the property rights movement. Those on the other side of the issue say the movement has brought new concerns=97and roadblocks=97to the environmental community. =93I=92m very concerned about it,=94 said Peter Douglas, executive direct= or of the California Coastal Commission. =93The private property rights movement ha= s met with success in the courts and has really crippled the public agencies=92= ability to protect community environmental values.=94 A key issue is something called =93regulatory takings,=94 a term unfamili= ar to most folks who haven=92t logged long hours at planning meetings. Property righ= ts advocates argue that if the government imposes regulations on a property = that diminishes the land=92s use, it amounts to a taking and the government sh= ould be forced to pay for some portion of the property. Courts have generally ruled that landowners must be compensated when new regulations remove all practical use for the property. But the property r= ights camp says that isn=92t enough. Bill Craven, of Sierra Club California, says that property ownership is n= ot absolute and that governments must often impose land use laws for the gre= ater public good, whether it=92s to protect endangered species, save trees, ma= intain scenic vistas or regulate population density. To require compensation for every new regulation, argues Michael Bean, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, would put landowners in the position of demanding ransom to not develop on the property. Bean says the environmental community is concerned with the new property = rights activism, though even property activists concede their disparate groups a= re not as coordinated as the environmental organizations. Bierwagen=92s group fought its battle with little outside help and manage= d to snuff out the scenic highway idea without going to court. Concerned Citiz= ens for 174 submitted a petition with 1,200 signatures, though only 400 or so peo= ple live along the portion of highway in question. The board retreated in frustration, before it even had an informational meeting to discuss optio= ns. =93I=92m actually quite frustrated as a decision-maker,=94 board chairman= Peter Van Zant said. =93There is a genuine fear of Big Brother. There is a distrust= of local government. . . . The frustration is finding the balance point. It=92s a = moving target.=94 But Karen Knetch, the lone board member who sided with Bierwagen, said he= r board often =93overreaches=94 on property rights matters. If the local governme= nt had to purchase the land affected by the scenic highway, it could have cost $30 = million or more, she said, and would have been even more unpopular with taxpayers. =93They are taking property through regulation. I think they have approac= hed and gone over that boundary in Nevada County,=94 Knetch said of her own board. The movement may have peaked about five years ago when Republicans seized control of Congress, but property rights groups are surging once again, m= any of the activists said. In Palo Alto, homeowners have banded together to fight City Hall=92s atte= mpt to prevent the remodeling of modest homes into mansions by putting them on a historic preservation list. Down in Malibu, Peggy Ann Buckley is hoping the movement will prevent oth= ers from enduring what she has been through: a decade of court battles; the destruction of her Malibu lot to a landslide she was forbidden to secure;= nearly $1 million in legal bills; and major loans from her father, a retired she= et metal worker. Buckley, 46, has battled the California Coastal Commission over a technic= ality concerning which government agency has jurisdiction over her property. Ho= ping to recoup damages, she is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her cas= e. The Coastal Commission says it would be a major setback if agencies were required to pay every time they made a jurisdictional error. =93When we purchased this property, I was totally naive,=94 said Buckley,= who is living in a trailer on her property while the court battle continues. =93= I thought the government was there to protect us, but I=92ve seen that people don=92= t have any property rights at all. I have lost 10 years. I am so far in debt you can= =92t imagine.=94 Lawyers who take property rights cases in California say they are practic= ally destined to lose. =93The California courts have historically been more supportive of local government regulation and less supportive of private property rights than anywhere else in the nation,=94 said Michael Berger, a Santa Monica attor= ney representing Buckley and a nationally recognized authority on land taking= s. Berger said many property owners are being bullied by governments that st= art with a good idea=97say, protecting the environment=97but run amok with re= gulations. He cites a now-notorious case in Monterey in which a developer, Del Monte= Dunes, tried to build condominiums on a 37-acre ocean-front plot. The planning commission rejected several applications over five years, until the usabl= e land was reduced to a 5-acre area. Five years after the first application, the commission finally decided th= e developer couldn=92t use that portion of land either because it was a pos= sible habitat for a rare butterfly, though no such butterfly had been seen on t= he property. Even environmental groups didn=92t want to be linked to that case, which = Del Monte Dunes won in U.S. Supreme Court in May. The land is now a public park. =93Certainly, that was a case that led itself to characterization,=94 sai= d Bean, the environmental attorney. =93Our interests aren=92t served by forcing lando= wners to go back repeatedly to get approval.=94 Bean said the environmental community opposes efforts to make governments= pay for all so-called regulatory takings. But he maintains there is a way of avoiding property rights conflicts involving endangered species. That app= roach would impose a per-acre assessment on property owners within the boundari= es of habitat conservation areas. Bean said California is already a national le= ader in using assessment money to purchase land where endangered species are foun= d. Back in Nevada County, the only middle ground Ernie Bierwagen wants is to= be left alone, to be good to the land he loves and continue to reap what he = sows. And he wants to be free to paint his barn whatever color he pleases. Problems? Suggestions? Let us hear from you. / Copyright =A9 The Sacramento Bee [------------------------- 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: Thu, 29 Jul 99 15:38:04 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Activit Alert 07/29/99 (fwd) On Jul 29, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Williams To: Amelu Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:14 AM Subject: Fw: Activit Alert 07/29/99 - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 6:19 AM Subject: Activit Alert 07/29/99 !! RNC ACTIVIST ALERT !! Thursday, July 29, 1999 =3D=3D=3D GOP PUTS IN THEIR "TWO CENTS WORTH," WHILE VICE PRESIDENT SCROOGE SAYS "HUMBUG" =3D=3D=3D A Dollar Saved Is Two Pennies Earned? Republicans whipped out their calculators and found the $792 billion tax rebate that liberal Democrats are objecting to in the U.S. Senate today is less than 3 cents out of every dollar of the $27 trillion in taxes hard-pressed families will for= k over to the federal government over the next 10 years. CHEAP VEEP SPEAKS: Meanwhile, Al Gore - Clinton's left-hand man - canoed up the Potomac to Capitol Hill Tuesday to tell hard-working Americans th= ey don't even deserve a two cent rebate out of every dollar they've earned and are forced to send to Washington. D=C9J=C0 VU? Remember a year ago = when Gore released his tax forms and was lambasted for giving a tiny $353 to charity? PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS? Why is Gore such a penny-pincher with his money - but so quick to hand your family's budget to Washington bureaucrats? Keep the Change: The Party of Lincoln is battling Gore and other Democra= t taxaholics to: cut the despised Marriage Penalty Tax that forces 42 million married Americans to pay extra taxes simply because they fell in love and got married; cut the Death Tax, which makes land-rich but cash-poor small business owners and farmers auction away livelihoods bui= lt on generations of hard work; give parents the opportunity to save more money in a tax free account for their children's education, from kindergarten through college; allow self-employed workers to fully deduc= t their health insurance bills, and allow long-term care insurance to be fully deductible for every American. How Much is My Rebate? After locking away a full two-thirds of the overpayment for Social Security and Medicare, a senior with $30,000 in taxable income will get $510 back, a family earning $55,000 a year will get a $1,000 rebate and a single person making $25,000 a year will get a $380 rebate. That's money in your back pocket - not in the hands of Beltway bureaucrats and liberal politicians. GIVE YOUR TWO CENTS: We need your help getting this message out: forwar= d it to your friends; talk it up around the water cooler, the union hall a= nd other places; write letters to the editor and call into talk radio shows= ; call Gore and Democrats in Congress and tell them you want your "two cen= ts worth." Veep's office: 202/456-2326, e-mail: vice-president@whitehouse.gov or Senate switchboard: 202/224-3121. *************************************************** Do NOT respond to this email as it is an unmonitored account. If you have a question about the website, please email webmaster@rnc.org If you have other concerns, please email info@rnc.org IF YOU RECEIVE THE RNC NEWS VIA FORWARDING... Please subscribe today! It's completely FREE! Please note that we hate unsolicited junk mail as much as you do, so we will not give your address to anyone else! TO SUBSCRIBE, visit http://www.rnc.org To unsubscribe, visit http://www.rnc.org/unsubscribe *************************************************** [------------------------- 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, 31 Jul 99 17:00:57 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Hud + Gun suit Hey gang, check it out! HUD wants to jump onto the Gun manufacturer lawsuit bandwagon! - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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, 31 Jul 99 17:31:42 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #146 (2/2) (fwd) Furthermore, "the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall arrange for 2 or more persons that have nationally recognized expertise in regulatory analysis and regulatory accounting, and that are independent of and external to the Government, to provide peer review of each accounting statement and associated report." And so it goes. Still, in any form, and for any reason, the federal regulatory bureaucracy is unconstitutional. That is the real fact Congress should be addressing. THE FLAG OF CONCERN IS RAISED There are two field grade and two company grade officers from another country who read this newsletter regularly. That is because we are friends. We met by accident a few years ago while they were acting as tourists for a few days before an important work related business meeting. And, because I wanted to brush up on their language, and they English, we have spent a few hours together over the past few years. On their last trip, there was some conversation on the topics reported here that interested them. The UN and martial law were on the front burner. Two of the men had worked with/for the UN for a while and freely related that the UN greatly fears an armed American populace. As part of one contingency plan, they know it would be nearly impossible for foreign UN forces to function in this country while so many of us are armed. The UN's desire, therefore, is that we be disarmed. No great surprise there. What they related on martial law was a real surprise, though. According to the most senior of the four, there are not enough U.S. troops to enforce martial law in this country unless the people passively allow it. Maybe so. The Army has 468,000, the Marines but 170,000 and there are 75,000+ armed federal regulators and 600,000 local police officers in the country. That's about one armed person for every 190 citizens. The gentleman was correct. After checking with an American Army officer of the same relative rank, we find that's not even enough to hold California if the people do not cooperate. In fact, because of the mountains, that is not enough to take over Eastern Kentucky, either. That is, short of air raids and the use of big guns, it is not. When asked where they will be at the stroke of midnight for the new year, the reply was a unanimous and unequivocal, "Home!" Because, as freely related to me, they expect many more problems there than we are expected to have here. And, so it appears, do many leaders in military units from countries around the world. When I mentioned that many Americans fear their guns will be confiscated, I was laughed at. The reply was something like: "One at a time. Yes. All together, at once, never." Which makes complete sense, if one thinks about it. The government is already actively working on that "one at a time" part. So, I asked straight out: "Do you think we are to have martial law?" After a bit of discussion, the answer was "probably yes," in some form. Their reasoning, however, did not deviate at all from many things we, and others, have been reporting. That is, committees from both the House and Senate have already called for martial law and questioned the Pentagon on it's readiness. All military leaves are canceled. So too are the vacations of any and all armed federal officers. The National Guard and Reserves will be on alert. And, all police departments will be at full manpower. Clearly, then, someone expects to have massive force available for something. Else, they would not be putting all those guns at the ready. But, why? Certainly, some of us could have a Y2K problem of some sort. But, 99% of us will stay home to take care of family. That being true, there will not be much policing to be done. Then other news came in. That armed encampment known as FBI headquarters closed its doors to visitors. A few days later, so did the Pentagon. It seems strange, at least on this end, that the people with all the guns, those best able to defend themselves in case of trouble, are hunkered down against the American public. Is there something going on here that we should know about, or is this just the first step in whipping their people into an "us" against "them" mentality? We think that the American people have a right to know exactly what is happening. Is the supposed threat of domestic or foreign origin? What is the threat to our family, neighborhood, city? But, we serf-citizens will never be told. So, we must raise the flag of concern. And concern, for anyone who has ever worked with me, of course means preparation. Because, ultimately, we are the ones most responsible for protection of home, family and neighborhood. Therefore, my friends, it is time to get both body and skills up to par. Whatever the threat may be, we are the initial home defense. SPIN: HYPOCRISY IN ACTION For over a week, EPA ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "clean air" spots on Cincinnati radio. Like other parts of the country, the Cincinnati area was under a heat and "smog" alert and the EPA was threatening draconian new constraints on residents if they violated one of EPA's arbitrary and capricious "attainment" guidelines. The radio spots told local people to curtail such things as driving, using lawn mowers, barbecuing, and a number of other normal activities in order to keep the "smog" that is always present on hot summer days down to the level EPA demands. No matter, though. President Bill Clinton had a fund raiser scheduled in Cincinnati. Which means, Clinton came to town. And, in so doing, he was directly responsible for hundreds of unnecessary police and public official's cars to be on the road. Worse yet, the Clinton procession tied up Friday evening rush hour traffic for many thousands of home-bound drivers while they waited for the Presidential motorcade to make the 30 mile trip from the airport, through Cincinnati and over to the fat cat fund raiser. But that's not all. Being totally oblivious to the health of the local residents, President Clinton used the largest jet aircraft in his fleet, a 747, to come to the Cincinnati area. And, according to EPA and others in the "Green" cabal, a 747 arriving and departing from the average airport produces as much smog as a car driven over 5,600 miles, and as much polluting nitrogen oxides as a car driven nearly 26,500 miles. It also belches out a ton of soot. Bill Clinton knew this and should have thought twice before unnecessarily flying into an area under a heat and smog alert. Obviously, though, campaign funds are much more important to Bill Clinton than the health and lives of the metropolitan Cincinnati residents. There have been no reports yet as to exactly how many of the area's asthmatic babies and children suffered due to the nonchalant and careless antics of the President of the United States. However, the next time health statistics are reported, there is expected to be a spike for that week. Also last week, Al Gore, the Vice President and reigning chairman of the Green cabal who claims there is no controlling legal authority over administration wrongdoers, proved to America that the environmental laws, rules and regulations only apply to us serf-citizens and never to the controlling elite. While the socialist clowns in Congress were busy defending their mandate that all Americans use only "low-flow" toilets -- another goofy idea by Al Gore, originally proposed to conserve water -- Al Gore managed to use enough water for a silly campaign photo-op to flush the equivalent of two-and-a-half BILLION toilets. It seems that Vice President Al Gore and Governor Jeanne Shaheen paddled out on a section of the Connecticut River for the photo opportunity. However, there wasn't a lot of water in that river this summer. So, they had it "fixed." To make it "picture perfect," they needed more water, so a special discharge of nearly 4 billion gallons of water was let out of a dam upstream to keep their canoe afloat. "They won't release water for the fish when we ask them to, but somehow they find themselves able to release it for a politician," complained John Kassel, director of the Vermont Department of Natural Resources, to The Washington Times. Kassel accompanied Gore on the trip. "The only reason they did this was to make sure the vice president's canoe didn't get stuck." That was far from the first time Gore put personal well-being above the environment, though. During the 1996 presidential race, he had Denver officials release 96 million gallons of water, at a cost of $59,000, so he could be photographed against a roaring South Platte River. The Gore team "had to know the river levels were being raised, just like they had to know he was going to a Buddhist temple for a fund-raiser," Republican National Chairman Jim Nicholson, said. In a stop down the road, Gore announced that $819,000 from various federal sources will be spent to enhance the Connecticut River's environmental and economic resources. "We have to make the 21st century the time when we finally right the environmental wrongs of our past," Gore told a small group of less than 200 who gathered in one of Hammond Farm's fresh-cut hay fields along the Connecticut in Cornish. No word, yet, on exactly how much Gore's latest photo-op splash cost taxpayers. Truly, Gore is correct: There is "no controlling legal authority" for this administration. We are to do as we are told. They do as they wish. That's how far the "rule of law" has deviated off course in these United States. ~ 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, 31 Jul 99 17:36:46 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #146 (1/2) (fwd) Any other thoughts on making Government accountable? "On Jul 31, Doug Fiedor wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia August 1, 1999 #146 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- MAKE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE Last week, Columnist William Safire identified an obvious truth that has bothered a lot of Americans for a very long time: "We have stumbled into the era of no-fault government. Blamelessness is next to godliness; nobody in authority is held responsible for blunders, no matter how costly." Exactly. In the current scheme of things, only citizens may be held culpable by government. There is no mechanism for the people to hold government officials answerable, no matter how much they completely screw up, which parts of the Constitution they trash, or how many people they harm in the process. We the People gave the federal government its job description, but we have little or no recourse when they do not follow it. Safire writes that, for government workers, there is an "absence of penalty for failure to do one's job." Precisely! And so too is there an absence of penalty even when they do that which is expressively forbidden to the federal government. Making laws concerning liberty, religion and our right to keep and bear arms comes to mind quickly. So does the wholesale stealing of private property through bizarre forfeiture laws. Safire says that: "Only institutions may be chastised in this blame-free society -- not those individuals wrapped in anonymity who make the costly mistakes." Not exactly. How can a citizen charge a federal agency, or even a single agent, with a crime for an illegal search or seizure? The fact is, that is impossible. Because, even if that citizen can afford to hire a room full of lawyers and wins his case in every court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government will just disregard the court rulings and go about doing exactly as it wishes anyway. For instance, last month the D.C. Court of Appeals told EPA to shut up and quit bothering people with all their goofy new unconstitutional regulations. The EPA doesn't care. They stopped for about an hour. Now they're full speed ahead again. In a series of Supreme Court cases -- including "New York," "Lopez" and "Printz" -- the federal government was told that the Tenth Amendment is the controlling legal authority and that they have no authority to tell a State to do anything other than those matters expressly listed within the Constitution. Did that help? Obviously not. I just saw a State legislator's list of laws the federal government demands they pass during the next session of the General Assembly. It's a long list, too. So, as with the stupid EPA oppression, why aren't the federal officials demanding these unconstitutional law changes arrested, tried and imprisoned? They are, after all, using the power of their office in an expressly illegal manner -- and causing harm to American citizens. If a citizen uses illegal coercion and harms people, we can be sure government agents will come after that perpetrator. Why then may government agents disobey the Constitution by applying illegal coercion to State and local elected officials (and citizens) with impunity? The law should work the same for everyone. Safire labels some of this as the "evasion of accountability." That's true, to a point. But there is more to it than just that. Most often, it also amounts to a blatant abuse of power. For instance, the Fourth Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." A warrant must be issued stating exactly "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Yet, try to go into an airport or federal building without being searched. Government even has banks, credit reporting bureaus and automobile dealerships acting as their snitches. And, if government agents find a citizen carrying over $1,000 in cash, they will steal the money. To be stopped and searched for no reason is a serious violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, as is forfeiture. Yet, it happens many thousands of times every day throughout the country. Some Constitutional violations would almost be comical if they weren't so aggravating. For instance, last week Congress sent in the clowns again to discuss what type of toilets we would be allowed to use in our homes. Watching that discussion is kind of like watching Clarabell the Clown trying to explain to Bozo something that is neither of their concerns. It's time to hire some adults we can trust to work in government. The current crew does not seem to know their place in the Constitutional scheme of things. REINING IN THE REGULATORS House Republicans finally started asking a few questions about the regulatory bureaucracy. We do not think they asked the correct questions on this round. Nevertheless, the information they demand will be interesting. For over 50 years, Congress has allowed the vast federal regulatory bureaucracy to do darn near as it wished. Congress would pass an open ended law stating some type of goal, and a bunch of desk-bound regulators (with the help of their Non Government Organization friends and interested big industry lobbyists) would promulgate a few hundred rules and regulations impacting on the unsuspecting American people with the full force of law. That being done, the federal regulation bureaucracy decided they needed their own special armed police force. Next, they wanted their own special court system, a court system in which they can hire and fire their own judges. Soon, most regulatory agencies were all three branches of government rolled into one. Then, they took their cue from the IRS's tried and proven tactics and stated that violations of their edicts would be a civil crime so that the Bill of Rights would not apply and a citizen would be guilty in one of their little kangaroo courts until proven innocent. The Democratic run Congress loved this arrangement. The people were properly controlled, and the Congress Critter could stand back and tell any constituent falling into the clutches of that unconstitutional system: "It ain't my fault, I'm on your side against this out of control bureaucracy." It is Congress' fault, though. Under orders of the socialist Roosevelt administration, Congress created the mess. Then, every year thereafter, they expanded on it. Now, Republicans in Congress are starting to look at the federal regulatory bureaucracy a little. And they realize what a real mess they have on their hands. There is little or nothing about the federal regulatory bureaucracy that even comes close to being authorized by powers given to the federal government by the Constitution. And now, being the majority in both houses, the problem is the Republicans' responsibility. Here's the problem: Most Republicans (not the old ones, they are lost causes) know that, like the IRS, the whole of the regulatory system makes a total mockery of that "rule of law" we call our Constitution. Regulatory agencies are, in fact, executive, legislative and judicial branches rolled into one bureaucracy. They are much closer to the communist politburo form of government than anything our Founding Fathers ever envisioned. But, that has become our system and no one knows how to change it back. Because, to abolish the regulatory system would mean a gross loss of power for the federal government. The people could not be controlled as strictly. Even the suggestion of a cutback would cause a chorus of socialists -- Clinton, the Democrats in Congress and their sycophants in the press -- to scream bloody murder. So, Congress is going to tinker with the regulatory system a little. Now comes the "Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999," or HR 1074. It just passed the House last week and now goes to that sink hole called the Senate. The House estimated that it costs the American people an extra $700 billion in hidden costs every year just to comply with federal rules and regulations. Republicans in the House want to know how much, if any, of this money is getting measurable results. "Americans deserve to know where their hard- earned tax dollars are going, and this bill will provide that information," said House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA), chief sponsor of the bill. The socialists and liberals in the federal government are up in arms, though. The Clinton administration and the old line Democrats oppose the bill, saying the benefits of federal health and safety rules are difficult to quantify and the bill would put unneeded new burdens on federal agencies. Yeah, they would have to be a little bit accountable for once. The bill requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit to Congress an annual analysis of the impact of federal rules and paperwork on both the public and private sector. In that analysis, the costs and benefits of each agency and agency program, rule and regulation must be specified and the OMB must include a report on duplications and inconsistencies between agencies. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** 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 #265 *************************