From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #280 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, September 16 1999 Volume 02 : Number 280 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 99 09:48:28 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: House Passes Campaign Reforms - write to your senator (fwd) On Sep 15, Shimm, David wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Write to your Senator to oppose this bill. This is important -- if Shays-Meehan becomes law, it will be illegal for NRA or any other pro-gun organizations to run issue oriented ads within 60 days of an election House Passes Campaign Reforms 252 to 177 Vote Puts Pressure on Senate By Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 15, 1999; Page A01 The House last night approved a bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation's scandal-scarred campaign finance laws by cutting off the flow of unregulated contributions to political parties and curbing attack ads by advocacy groups. Lawmakers passed the measure, 252 to 177, as proponents overcame adamant opposition from Republican leaders. The House action put new pressure on reluctant Senate Republicans to reverse themselves and approve a plan aimed at curbing special-interest influence on elections. As of now, the bill's supporters do not have the votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. The final vote came shortly before midnight, after a nearly day-long debate in which House members argued, often passionately, over whether the bill would strengthen or undermine democracy and citizens' rights to free speech and honest elections. The final margin, roughly the same as the vote by which the House approved the same bill last year, reflected lawmakers' continued concern over public reaction to fund-raising scandals in the 1996 presidential campaign and signs that spending on the 2000 race will set records. Fifty-four Republicans broke ranks with their leaders and joined most Democrats in supporting the measure. "We're going from a government by the people, for the people, to a government of lobbyists and special interests," said House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) in arguing for the bill. "By passing [the bill], we will take a major first step toward restoring the American people's belief in their representative democracy and returning the agenda back to their needs." The bill, sponsored by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), would bar the use of unregulated, unlimited "soft money" from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals in federal campaigns, shutting down a fast-growing source of campaign funding that figured prominently in the 1996 campaign finance scandals. It also would apply existing campaign rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election, which currently escape regulation because they do not call explicitly for the candidates' election or defeat. Other proposals would strengthen disclosure requirements, clarify laws governing foreign contributions to campaigns and create a commission to propose other reforms. GOP leaders balked at rescheduling the House debate on campaign finance for this fall and fought the legislation to the end, warning wavering Republicans that they would lose their edge in soft-money contributions if the bill passed. Democrats have strongly supported the measure, though they too have come to benefit heavily from soft money. Yesterday, both sides agreed that the system is a "mess," as Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) put it, but they disagreed over whether the bill would make it worse or better: Worse, because it would threaten free speech and political participation, said Doolittle. Better, because it would help ensure that "elections are governed by law" and not "manipulated by loophole," argued Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif.) Some of the strongest criticism of the bill came from Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who said: "Make no mistake about it. Shays-Meehan guts the First Amendment, threatens citizen participation in the political process and ends the ability of citizen groups to educate the public unless they file bureaucratic paperwork with the federal government." Supporters of the bill argued that free speech was being raised as a red herring. "This is not about freedom of speech, because we have retained free speech. It's about ending the corruption of politics," Shays said. Before the final vote, lawmakers beat back nine proposed amendments or substitutes that would have derailed the measure by killing it outright, gutting its key provisions or destroying its base of support. The House rejected amendments to raise individual contribution limits from $1,000 to $3,000, weaken proposed restrictions on printed attack ads, require candidates to raise at least half of their contributions from their home states, exempt Internet ads from regulation, and invalidate the whole bill if any part of it was struck down by the courts. Lawmakers also rejected three proposed substitutes that would have repealed existing contribution limits, offered narrower soft-money regulations or confined any changes to an updating of Federal Election Commission operations. But the House voted 242 to 181 to approve, as it did last year, a proposal to prohibit foreign-born persons who are legal permanent residents but not U.S. citizens from making contributions to federal campaigns. It also approved, 261 to 167, an amendment to require non-officeholders -- such as prospective New York Senate hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton -- to pay the full cost of travel when they fly on government planes to campaign. At a campaign event on Long Island, Clinton called the proposal a "diversionary attempt to try to take attention away from the important issue of campaign finance reform." Before the debate opened, President Clinton, whose controversial fund-raising practices in 1996 helped inspire the current reform effort, wrote all House members urging passage of the bill. Passage would "revitalize the political process by curbing the role of special interests, giving voters a louder voice and treating incumbents and challengers of both parties fairly," Clinton wrote. Across the Capitol, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) were struggling to find a way of picking up Republican support for their version of the bill without alienating Democrats, who account for the vast majority of votes in favor of the legislation. Under an agreement worked out earlier by McCain, Feingold and Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the two sponsors were to submit their bill by yesterday. Yesterday, Feingold said he and McCain needed more time but would submit a bill later this week. One option is to drop the provision on issue ads and confine the bill to curbs on soft money, thereby deflecting some of the free-speech arguments against the bill. Key Democrats have strongly objected to any major scaling back of the bill. In two votes last year, a majority of senators voted for the McCain-Feingold bill, but it fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to cut off a GOP filibuster. No Republicans other than the seven who joined Democrats in trying to cut off the filibuster last year have said they will support the bill this year, though McCain has said at least two have expressed interest. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/15/198l-091599-idx.html [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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, 15 Sep 99 23:31:22 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Stand Together Or Fall Apart (fwd) On Sep 15, Exegesis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Exegesis A Compass For Moral Excellence Published Worldwide From Washington http://www.sm.org/exegesis September 15, 1999 ______________________________ Have you read our daily online newspaper? Every day, we scan the world's finest news sources and produce a=20 daily online newspaper just for you. We update it as events dictate. PAGE 1 NEWS Real News from the Real World http://www.sm.org/news or http://www.page1news.com ______________________________ ExTel The lowest ever long-distance rates! See our expanded range of=20 wholesale services! Unitel: 5.9 cents a minute anywhere in the US. Your own toll-free=20 number for just 5.9=A2 a minute - and no monthly fees!=20 http://unitelagent.com/?sm.org Opex (formerly PremierCom): 7.5 cents a minute anywhere in the US,=20 super-discounted international and instate rates. 6 second billing,=20 no monthly fees! http://ld.net/7.5/sm.org AccuLinq Calling Cards at 9.9 cents a minute - http://ld.net/linq/?sm.org See all our services at http://www.sm.org ______________________________ Stand Together Or Fall Apart What we have is a one-party system in Washington that is masquerading=20 as a two-party system, and I think what we need is a real opposition=20 party. Patrick Buchanan, Meet The Press, September 12, 1999 In the United States, a one-party system disguised as a two-party=20 system has replaced free elections. Exegesis, March 8, 1999 Has the time come to break the mold of America's corrupt two-party=20 system? It has become debilitating to the point of despair. As we=20 wrote a year ago, "as long as Americans are limited to a choice=20 between strong socialism or weak socialism, an increasing number of=20 them will vote by staying home. Neither major party seems willing to=20 offer a way back to limited, constitutional government." Nothing has=20 changed. The American political system has been reduced to a monolithic=20 politburo, in which the nation's founding principles, the=20 Constitution, innovation and excellence are eschewed in favor of a=20 nanny state, an apparently terminal national decline, and a deeply=20 desired mediocrity, primarily because the Elite who rule both parties=20 have no interest in change, principle or individualism. There is=20 only the weakest argument to be made for retaining the status quo. The Elite profits from chaos and drift, while their media distract=20 and entertain the masses with perpetual nothink. America has been=20 seduced into a trivia trance while even those few Republicans who=20 genuinely seek change find themselves trapped in a rigged system. George W. Bush is clearly different from Bill Clinton, but is he=20 different enough? What he seems to be proposing amounts to what=20 Margaret Thatcher called "milk and water socialism", the usual array=20 of watered down big government programs. He can certainly show=20 differences with the Democrats, but they seem marginal compared with=20 the similarities. Does America really need compassionate Conservatism, his father's=20 kinder, gentler nation? Or does it need a thorough legislative=20 spring cleaning to sweep away, once and for all, the unconstitutional=20 bureaucracy that overburdens taxpayers and stifles initiative? If he=20 wants conservative votes, Mr. Bush needs to state boldly that he is=20 very different, that he really means business. Is Mr. Bush suggesting that unqualified conservatism is uncaring? It=20 depends on how you define care, but surely the first act of caring is=20 good stewardship of public time, money and talents. Is it a good use=20 of public money, for example, to devote half the nation's income to=20 subsidizing the other half? Does that help people to help=20 themselves? There are many ways in which Mr. Bush outshines Bill=20 Clinton's grotesque, immoral character and Al Gore's dull liberalism,=20 but if he simply seeks to be a Clinton of the Right, America has had=20 quite enough of that, thank you. Conservative principles of limited, Constitutional government, low=20 taxes, Christian ethics and an end to corporate and personal=20 subsidies do not need to be qualified. They stand solid as a rock.=20 Wouldn't it be glorious to see the prosperous, self-sufficient,=20 well-disciplined nation that would result from their implementation=20 for a few decades? Come to think of it, wouldn't it be a terrific=20 step forward to be allowed the choice to vote for them in a free=20 election? William Rees-Mogg, writing with his usual perceptive pen in The Times=20 of London this week, says that "Americans feel that their federal=20 Government has become too distant and too corrupt, that crooks in=20 high places have taken it away from them." He is right, but can=20 anything be done, and if so, what? The media naysayers confirm beyond doubt that the time is right for a=20 strong third party challenge. Of course, the odds remain firmly in=20 George W. Bush's favor, and we see no reason to change our January=20 24, 1997 prediction that he will be the next President of the United=20 States. However, those who wish to see a return to a small, low cost=20 government can afford to wait no longer.. If the time is right to=20 challenge the two-party system, how it shall be done and what result=20 should be sought? The end of the system? Electoral Reform? Should=20 a third party seek merely the White House or should they seek to win=20 seats in Congress too? Can such a third party maintain its purity,=20 free from the influence and control of the Elite? There are three principal "third parties" in America: the=20 Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, started by Ross Perot, and the=20 Constitution Party, formerly the US Taxpayers' Party. All have=20 contested elections but, except for Jesse Ventura's gubernatorial=20 victory in Minnesota last year, none has ever won any significant=20 office. Yet can the three parties still afford the luxury of=20 separateness and perceived ideological purity, even if it means that=20 power will never be theirs? Indeed, is there a way in which at least=20 two of them could enter some kind of an alliance to gain a real=20 foothold with voters? In the last Exegesis, we proposed such a=20 possibility: an electoral alliance between the Reform Party and the=20 Constitution Party. As we predicted, Pat Buchanan's imminent defection to the Reform=20 Party will result in a solidly pro-life platform, whatever the=20 preferences of Governor Jesse Ventura. That removes the greatest=20 obstacle in the way of such an alliance. There remain differences,=20 but none as great as those within the Republican Party. As this=20 fascinating scenario develops, perhaps it is time for our friends in=20 the newly renamed Constitution Party to schedule a quiet meeting with=20 Mr. Buchanan. The former US Taxpayers' Party has a wonderful and extensive network=20 of devoted followers. The Reform Party has the financial backing of=20 Ross Perot and will soon have an articulate, nationally-known=20 candidate. If an agreement can be struck, could the Constitution=20 Party's vice-presidential candidate, Joseph Sobran, run on a joint=20 Constitution-Reform ticket with Pat Buchanan? Wouldn't the result be=20 worth a small sacrifice of pride? William Rees-Mogg again: "If voters simply want to clear Clinton and=20 Clintonism out of the White House they can vote for George W. Bush.=20 That would, however, only replace the Democrat establishment with the=20 Republican one." Are enough voters sufficiently disillusioned with=20 the elite to break ranks and vote their consciences? If a=20 Constitution-Reform Alliance came about, it would need a few favors. One helpful favor would be Gary Bauer's eventual endorsement. In=20 1996, the US Taxpayers' Party was supported by the influential Dr.=20 James Dobson. If he did so again and Gary Bauer joined him,=20 conservatives might find a home at last. There would still be=20 challenges, not the least of which would be to expose the vast amount=20 of electoral fraud and to overcome the establishment media.=20 Nonetheless, when natural allies join forces to combat a single=20 enemy, in this case, the two-party system, they strengthen themselves=20 and their cause. It's a challenge for Ross Perot, Howard Phillips, Pat Buchanan and=20 Joe Sobran to contemplate. Perhaps we may remind them of Edmund=20 Burke's words: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else=20 they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible=20 struggle." As all are regular Exegesis readers, we shall await=20 developments with great interest and prayerful patience. =87 Steve=20 Myers =D7 Editor ____________________________________________________________________ Thank you so much for your kind prayers and letters of condolence=20 following the death of my mother on August 19th. She had been ill=20 for a while, but it all happened quite suddenly. The phone call=20 everyone dreads came at 4:45 am, and a few hours later, I was on my=20 way to London. We were never to meet again, but the last few=20 occasions we were together were all happy times, and I will fondly=20 remember those last meetings. Our final telephone conversation, about a week before she died,=20 summarized the last twenty years. "It's not your religious beliefs I=20 object to, it's the way you express them," she said. I replied that,=20 though I loved and respected her immensely, nothing was going to=20 change. I would not compromise the Gospel. So she died, still angry=20 and still defiant against God, as are many Jewish people. All I can=20 do is entrust her to His loving care and tender mercy. =87 SM ____________________________________________________________________ Have you read our daily online newspaper? Every day, we scan the world's finest news sources and produce a=20 daily online newspaper just for you. We update it as events dictate. PAGE 1 NEWS Real News from the Real World http://www.sm.org/news or http://www.page1news.com ____________________________________________________________________ ExTel The lowest ever long-distance rates! See our expanded range of=20 wholesale services! Unitel: 5.9 cents a minute anywhere in the US. Your own toll-free=20 number for just 5.9=A2 a minute - and no monthly fees!=20 http://unitelagent.com/?sm.org Opex (formerly PremierCom): 7.5 cents a minute anywhere in the US,=20 super-discounted international and instate rates. 6 second billing,=20 no monthly fees! http://ld.net/7.5/sm.org AccuLinq Calling Cards at 9.9 cents a minute - http://ld.net/linq/?sm.org See all our services at http://www.sm.org _________________________________________________ =A9 Exegesis 1999 Post Office Box 789, McLean, Virginia 22101, USA Subscriptions: Fax $32.95, E-Mail $16.95 * E-Mail exegesis@sm.org To subscribe or unsubscribe please visit our web page at http://www.sm.org/exegesis/subscribe.html [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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, 16 Sep 99 10:06:22 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [slick-d] [ HELP RON PAUL..] (fwd) On Sep 16, D. D. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Rick ;-)> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:38:47 -0600 From: Randy Trochmann Reply-To: militia@montana.com Organization: Militia of Montana To: "M.O.M. Email Alert List" Subject: FWD: HELP RON PAUL.. Subject: HELP RON PAUL --Letter from Rep. Ron Paul !! Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:35:02 -0700 From: "MCAC" To: "Anthony Wayne" Forward to all: HELP RON PAUL <--Letter from Rep. Ron Paul !! From: TamKay24@aol.com Subj: HELP RON PAUL <--Letter from Rep. Ron Paul !! Congressman Ron Paul House of Representatives 203 Cannon Washington D.C. 20515 Dear Friend: The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government. As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew. I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a VERY limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill -- working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in. So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be ANY federal police, according to the Constitution. Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre.Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put the few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years. We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- talk about an unconstitutional agency -- rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for a big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents. The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas. Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians. After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people -- men, women, children, and babies--were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves? A new documentary -- Waco: The Rules of Engagement -- may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated. Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing. In my TV interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge -- especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby -- caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone. Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and -- of course -- the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?) I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial. But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get ANYTHING right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension. I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way. I'm in Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors, but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work? Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to fight for the UN. But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with NOTHING. Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman -- who's always talking about getting rid of the IRS -- why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top "Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play the Capitol Hill games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the gestapo more of your money. or figuring out some other federal tax for them to squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job. The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, and notes redeemable in them. Not Fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated, at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse. They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th-century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit. I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress. But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's what the Constitution says, and the Bible too. And then there's my least favorite foreign topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage. Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know it's radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America? Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a "maverick who will never go far because he won't 'go along to get along.'" Darn right.What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? The heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either. When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and paintings of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way. When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what I'm fighting for. But such ideas drive the liberals crazy. That's why I badly need your help. I've been targeted nationally for defeat. The Democrats, the AFL-CIO, the teachers union, big business PACs, the trial lawyers, the big bankers, the foreign-aid .lobbyists, the big media, and the establishment Republicans want to dance on my political grave. The Fed, the Education Department, and the UN are anxious to join in. They can't stand even one person telling the truth. And they're terrified when that truth gains the people's support. Right now, four well-funded Democrats are competing to try to beat me, and a Republican is rumored to have been offered money at a secret meeting in Mexico(!) if he would try to knock me off in a primary. Won't you help me stay up here to fight? Frankly, I'm in trouble if you don't. My Texas district has 22,000 square miles (not a misprint). I've got to travel all over it, set up small offices to be manned by volunteers, advertise, pay phone bills, and distribute video and audio tapes to the people to get around the big-media lies. As I know from my last election, which I won by the skin of my teeth, the media will carry any smear, repeat any libel, throw any piece of mud, no matter how untrue. In fact, the less true, the more they like it. They are determined to silence me. But you can help me overcome all this. Together, we can beat the bad guys arrayed against our country and our freedom. We can support the Constitution. We CAN win. Your generous contribution of $25 or $50 would be great. $100, $250, or even $500 or $1,000 would be magnificent. Of course, any amount would help, and in return, I will keep you up-to-date on this fight as a member of my "kitchen cabinet." What great men founded this country. What great people have carried on their fight. That fight is not lost, not if you will join it. Washington, D.C., is a loser, but among the people, our ideas are gaining EVERY SINGLE DAY. Keep the tide turning in our direction. Please make your most generous contribution. Join this fight for the Constitution, and stop those who want to rip it up, and throw it in the Potomac. Together, we can join the Founders, fight. Together, we can make history. Sincerely, Ron P.S.: Without you, I may be lost, and they'll be breaking out the champagne in D.C. PLEASE, DON'T LET THIS FIGHT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY FALTER. HELP ME WIN IT. - -- Join the Militia of Montana Email Alert List by writing to: militia@montana.com with SUBSCRIBE in the Subject Line! M.O.M. Archived posts at: http://www.montana.com/militiaofmontana Visit our web site at: http://www.montana.com/militiaofmontana to stay informed with the latest news on the topics of MARTIAL LAW; UN TROOPS; GUN LEGISLATION; UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES, plus much more. Visit our Patriot Calendar of Events at: http://www.montana.com/militiaofmontana/calendar.htm to stay abreast of all the great meetings, conferences and expos that are held nation-wide. Check out your state listing. For the latest in great survival, preparedness and politically incorrect materials visit our Online Catalog at: http://www.montana.com/militiaofmontana/catalog.htm Some great deals are to be had! Or, send $2.00 to the address below for a copy of our 40+ page Preparedness Catalog. Militia of Montana P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853 Tel: 406-847-2735 n Fax: 406-847-2246 http://www.montana.com/militiaofmontana militia@montana.com Remove yourself from this list by writing to: militia@montana.com and type UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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, 16 Sep 99 21:30:10 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [slickplus] S L I C K Fwd: Runaway Judges (fwd) It should be noted that Judges can be Impeached..... On Sep 16, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Subj: Judicial Despotism Date: 7/25/99 12:31:39 AM Central Daylight Time From: ZOBOLI BCC: RichSlick On Judicial Despotism by Sen. John Ashcroft Sen. Ashcroft, Chairman of Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, "On Judicial Despotism" Courting Disaster: Judicial Despotism in the Age of Russell Clark CPAC Annual Meeting March 6, 1997 Senator John Ashcroft, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, offers a sober analysis in a speech given in March to on America's need to curb the activities of judges who legislate from the Bench. Thank you, Bill Pascoe, for that warm introduction. And, David (Keene) thank you for all that you and the American Conservative Union have done for movement politics. Let me begin by welcoming you to Washington. I want to welcome you not just in terms of hospitality, but also in terms of what you represent, and the values that you bring: the values of industry and commerce; integrity and faith; love of family and of country. And, perhaps most of all, a recognition that America's best days lie ahead. All too often, the Congress thinks there is no end to the good they can do with your money and their brains It is time for us to put an end to this misguided belief. The Founding Father's vision was for a constitutional republic where the will of the people would be imposed on Washington, not the views of Washington imposed on the people. So, for those of us who toil under the dark cloud of this capital city, your presence here this morning is an inspiration. Part ofthe mythology surrounding our Constitution is the idea that its adoption was inevitable. Time and distance have made it difficult to imagine that the wisdom and insight that is our founding document could have been tossed on the ash heap of history. Our forefathers, however, suffered no such delusions. They understood that the ratification debate was about first things, fundamental principles, ideas purchased with patriots' blood. Alexander Hamilton predicted that a "torrent of angry and malignant passions" would be awakened by the debate. He was not disappointed. In Virginia, Patrick Henry decried the new Constitution, calling it a "resolution as radical as that which separated us from [the Crown]." In New England, opponents worried aloud about liberties lost, rights eroded, judicial power left like, quote, "a boundless ocean." But Hamilton and his allies would not yield to these sharply expressed fears of judicial despotism. Rejecting such concerns, Hamilton offered his now famous phrase, "Here, Sir, the people govern." But "here" in America today, can it still be said that "the people govern"? Can it still be said that citizens control that which matters most? Or have people's lives and fortunes been relinquished to renegadejudges, a robed, contemptuous intellectual elite fulfilling Patrick Henry's prophecy, that of turning the courts into, quote, "nurser[ies] of vice and the bane of liberty"? Consider just how far the federal judiciary has strayed. In 1987, the federal courts assumed the right to tax the American people. District Judge Russell Clark ordered a tax increase to "remedy vestiges of segregation" in the Kansas City, Missouri school system. The decree -- and two billion tax dollars -- turned the city's school district into a gold-plated Taj Mahal complete with editing and animation labs, vivariums and greenhouses, temperature-controlled art galleries, and a model UN wired for language translation. While satiating the judge's thirst for educational intermeddling, the reforms left student achievement unchanged. And so today, the planetariums, pools, and pay increases stand only as a testament to tyranny, an appalling judicial activism that is contrary to all that the Framers held dear. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas indignantly opined, "[Clark] has trampled upon the principles of federalism" and in turn the Constitution itself. Or, consider 1992 when the court challenged God's ability to mark when life begins and ends. Three Reagan appointees joined the majority in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey to uphold a "woman's right to choose." So much for recapturing the Court. Together, Roe, Casey and their illegitimate progeny have occasioned the slaughter of thirty-five million children, thirty-five million innocents denied standing before the law. My friends, when the Court intervenes in such matters, debate in the public square does not end. The divide only deepens. Who among us would suggest that abortion is less divisive today than when the Court wrested control from the fifty states and the people? As Judge Bork asserts, the abortion rulings represent "nothing more than the decision of a Court majority to enlist on one side of the culture war. In 1995, the Supreme Court stole the right of self-determination from the people, throwing out Arkansas' congressional term limit law. No matter your thinking on term limits, consider only this: the Constitution is "silent" on limited tenure. And, as Justice Thomas recognized, "where the Constitution is silent it raises no bar to action by the states or the people. In recalling the term limits decision, I am always reminded of Ed Jaksha, a retired telephone company manager. Jaksha canvassed the state of Nebraska -- in authentic colonial garb -- imploring voters to Turnout for Term Limits. A year later, Jaksha's time and treasure were deemed ill-spent by five ruffians in robes who were kind enough to save him from himself. In 1996, the courts removed from the people the ability to establish equality under the law. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson prohibited the state of California from implementing Prop. 209. A Carter appointee who served on the ACLUs Board of Directors, Henderson held that if the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRT) were implemented, minorities would "face an immediate possibility of irreparable harm." But, Judge Henderson, what of the "irreparable harm" racial preference programs are inflicting right now? What of the Asian high school students routinely rejected at Berkeley based solely on the color of their skin? And, what of the "irreparable harm" activist judges have visited upon the U.S. Constitution? Perhaps someone should remind Judge Henderson that the constituting doctrine of all truly free societies is that rights belong to individuals, not groups. This was the essence of Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson just over a century ago. "The Constitution is color-blind," wrote Harlan, "and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Tragically, the courts have turned your individual rights into group rights as the aggrieved rush to our least representative branch in search of entitlement. These cases are but a page of snapshots in an album of the liberties lost. Over the last half century, the federal courts have usurped from school boards the power to determine what a child can learn; removed from the people the ability to establish equality under the law; and challenged God's ability to mark when life begins and ends. The courts have made liars of Hamilton, Madison, and Morris, confirming our forefathers' worst fears. For what the Framers intended to be the weakest branch of government, the judiciary, has become the most powerful. What, then, can we do to put an end to judicial tyranny? We can begin by asking ourselves why modern judicial activism exists in the first place. Could it be that we have been lax in demanding that judges place our constitutional rights before their policy objectives? Could it be we have failed to rejectjudges who are willing to place their private preferences above the people's will? Could it be that we have populated the courts with judges who believe their intellect to be superior to that of the Framers? Could it be all of the above? It is time to heed the counsel of Ed Meese by scrutinizing fully the nominees who come before the Senate for "advice and consent." Meese is right: there must be a dialogue between the President and the Senate regardingjudicial nominees. And, if the White House fails to solicit our "advice," perhaps we should withhold our "consent." What of the current crop of would-be judges? Consider William Fletcher nominated by the President to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. What has Mr. Fletcher done with himself since his Rhodes Scholar days with the President? Tenure at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law has provided Fletcher a forum to outline a judicial vision as bold as it is misguided. It seems Mr. Fletcher feels judges should be able to use what he calls "discretionary" powers to achieve desired policy goals. In other words, Mr. Fletcher wants to use a court appointment as a license to legislate. Americans have always believed efforts by the judiciary to legislate from the bench are illegitimate. To which Fletcher responds, "The presumption of illegitimacy may be overcome when the political bodies that should ordinarily exercise such discretion are seriously and chronically in default." Judge Russell Clark, meet "Willy" Fletcher; you two are sure to be fast friends. Frankly, the only thing "seriously and chronically in default," Mr. Fletcher, is your thinking on the United States Constitution. And then there is Margaret McKeown, another nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was McKeown, her ACLU marching orders in hand, who led the fight to disallow a Washington state ballot initiative denying special rights to homosexuals. Now, if McKeown's opposition had been confined to lobbying against the measure, so be it. That is her constitutionally protected right. But her efforts were far more sinister. She attempted to keep Washington voters from deciding on the measure at all. McKeown argued that the initiative process itselfwas unconstitutional and represented an "immediate and irreparable harm." The mere act of collecting signatures, it seems, would cause suffering, suicides, and substance abuse. Please! It's time to expose Mrs. McKeown and her ACLU friends for the liberal elitists that they are. Let me be clear: this is not about personality, it's not about ideology. It's about preserving our rights as they were indelibly inscribed in the Constitution. It is about not wanting more Russell Clarks on the federal bench. It is about a judicial legacy forged by the President and the Senate that will live well beyond the year 2000. We need nominees who care more about preserving and restoring the Constitution than running schools, parks, and prisons; more about the ACU than the ACLU. That is the essence of the pledge that my friend Paul Weyrich is circulating in the Senate. Paul's pledge simply and clearly offers the words of Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch. It says, "Those nominees who are or will be judicial activists should not be nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate, and I personally will do my best to see to it that they are not. What a tragic state of affairs when conservatives feel compelled to circulate a pledge to safeguard a constitution that every Senator was sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend." Nonetheless, let me talk to this issue, speaking for no individual save myself. When I laid my hand on the Bible to take the Oath ofOffice, I made my pledge to our Constitution. And as long as I have a voice and a vote in the U.S. Senate, I will fight the judicial despotism that stands like a behemoth over this great land. At its best, the Court is the guardian of the Constitution, a body to which all Americans look for the ultimate protection of their rights. At its worst, it is home to a "let-them-eat-cake elite" who hold the people in the deepest disdain. By guiding the judicial selection process, we can begin to reestablish the constitutional balance envisioned by the Framers. It is also time for us to take a broader, comprehensive look at the alarming increase in activism on the Court. As Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, I intend to convene hearings in the months ahead to examine this disturbing trend. Americans should not sit idly by as our individual rights are surrendered. We should enlist the American people in an effort to rein in an out-of-control Court. Our forefathers who warned of judicial power left like "a boundless ocean" were right. A half-century of unbridled judicial activism has made that danger clear to all but the intentionally ignorant. Experience is both the best and most expensive teacher. So, now that the costly lesson has been learned, "why stand we here idle" while the precious jewel of liberty is lost? Let us lend our voice to this cause. So that one day, in the not so distant future, we might once again say, "Here, Sir, the people govern." Thank you very much. ... the harsh truth is that... we may well be on our way to a society, overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated. - - Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY DON'T VOTE FOR LAWYERS! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 250 FREE HOURS on AOL! So easy to use, no wonder its #1 Click here NOW! for 250 Free HOURS http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/913 To subscribe to the Slick e-zine, send e-mail to RichSlick@aol.com for details. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 #280 *************************