From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #292 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, October 16 1999 Volume 02 : Number 292 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 99 10:21:51 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Abortion (fwd) On Oct 13, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I've never considered myself a single issue voter, but I've often had to remind myself of that before casting a vote for a Liberal Party candidate. (I'm referring to their anti-drug law stance.) Now I found out that drugs isn't their only hot button albeit one that I agree with. See below. Rich Martin Editor of Slick Fwd message > >Libertarians for Life was formed in 1976 to show why abortion is >not a right but an injustice. LFL's reasoning is expressly scientific and >philosophical rather than religious or pragmatic. As a political and a >social philosophy, libertarianism has one basic principle: each of us owes >everyone else not to commit aggression -- we may never initiate (unjust) >force against others for any reason, personal, social, or political, however >worthy. It follows from this non-aggression principle that everyone has the >right to control his or her own body -- but not in a way that inflicts harm >on anyone else without their consent. In explaining the libertarian case >against abortion, LFL focuses on 1) why we are human beings, persons with >unalienable rights from conception (fertilization); 2) why parents owe >their immature children, born and preborn, support and protection from harm; >and 3) why a just legal system must recognize that our lives and our >unalienable rights, including the right to life, co-exist from >fertilization. > >The IJSSP articles are listed below in the order they appear in the issue: > >*- Introduction, by Doris Gordon > >- Libertarianism is Pro-Life: An Introduction, by Bruce Earnheart > >- Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty, by Ron Paul > >*- How I Became Pro-Life: Remarks on Abortion, Parental Obligation, and the >Draft, by Doris Gordon > >- When Does the Human Being Begin? "Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts, >by Dianne N. Irving > >- A False Assumption, by Edwin Vieira, Jr. > >- Abortion and the Question of the Person, by John Walker > >*- Power and Act: Notes Towards Engaging in a Discussion of One of the >Underlying Questions in the Abortion Debate, by John Walker > >- Why Parental Obligation?, by John Walker > >- Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape, by John Walker > >- What Do Abortion Choicers Mean When They Tell Us: "Let's Get the >Government Out of Our Lives"?, by Doris Gordon > >- Fetal Rights: Enforceable in Principle: A response to "Fetal Rights: The >Implication of a Supposed Ought" by Tibor R. Machan, by Edwin Vieira, Jr. > >- Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy, by Doris >Gordon > >*- Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly, by Doris >Gordon > >I have not yet been able to find out whether nonsubscriber copies will be >purchasable through the publisher. However, LFL has a limited number >available as a fundraiser. A copy may be obtained for a donation of $25.00 >or more. (LFL is not tax exempt.) > >Most of the articles are also available on LFL's Web site. Changes were made >in some for the IJSSP. > >To order a copy of the IJSSP or for further information, please contact: > >Doris Gordon >Libertarians for Life 13424 Hathaway Drive >Wheaton, MD 20906 >Telephone: 301-460-4141 >FAX: 301-871-8552 >LFL's Web site: http://www.L4L.org >libertarian@erols.com To join the Waco discussion group, Click here ----> waco-gro up-subscribe@egroups.com To join the Slick discussion group, Click here ----> slick-d-sub scribe@egroups.com and read what others are saying about these issues. FREE To join the SlickPlus internet group, Click here ----> SlickPlus-Subscribe@egroups.com and receive free e-mails from others about the same topics. FREE To sign off, send e-mail to SlickPlus-unsubscribe@egroups.com what could be easier? * * * * * - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Telebank Money Market yields are consistently DOUBLE the national average and CD yields in the TOP 1% nationally for 10 years! FDIC insured. Click for FREE Information Kit. http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1124 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:38:22 -0700 From: skip Subject: Re: 2 Time Polls (fwd) Bill Vance wrote: > > On Oct 13, Bob Mueller wrote: > Should [snip- local and state governments and - snip] individual citizens > be allowed to sue > gun manufacturers for damages related to crimes in which firearms are used? Small point perhaps, but the question here get to me. What is this business about 'allowing' (or not allowing) lawsuits by individual citizens. They can sue anybody they like for anything they like and I wouldn't want it any other way - certainly no laws prohibiting it. If their suits are frivolous or weak, they'll pay a dear price for it in lawyer and court fees, but that's got to be a matter of individual choice, not laws exempting certain special interests (like HMOs or gun manufacturers) from private suits. FWIW. Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:35:07 -0500 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Bush (Sr) still (Red) China Hand? << http://online.hkstandard.com/today/default.asp?PageType=ach2 >>> (15 Oct 1999) Hong Kong Standard TIGERNET Saturday Bush calls for end to bashing STORY: FORMER US President George Bush has called for ``active engagement'' between the United States and the mainland, and urged Beijing and Taiwan to pursue a peaceful bilateral solution to their dispute. ``We should bash each other less and consult more,'' Mr Bush said at a business forum in Hong Kong yesterday. It may be too early to label the mainland a ``strategic partner'' of the US, but ``it's ridiculous to label China a new enemy'', he said, referring to virulent criticism of Beijing from some American quarters. Sino-US relations have been strained in recent months by the Nato bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May, differences over Beijing's bid to enter the World Trade Organisation and friction over Taiwan. Allegations of mainland spying at US nuclear laboratories also contributed to the strains, which presidents Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin tried to ease with a summit on the fringes of a Pacific Rim summit last month. Mr Bush said both Washington and Beijing should ``show vision'' in building closer ties into the next century, suggesting a policy of ``active engagement'' to ensure their relations remained on track. ... The former president said the next occupant of the White House should ensure the US stayed involved with the mainland and make it clear to Beijing that ``we are not in this policy of containment'' of China. The next administration should also convince the mainland that Washington did not seek ``any American leadership in Asia''. . . . He described as an ``embarrassment' the annual US Congressional debate and vote on extending the Normal Trading Relations status, previously known as the Most Favoured Nation status, to the mainland. . . . Any US effort to mediate in a cross-straits dialogue would be ``totally counter-productive'', he warned, saying it was up to negotiators from both sides of the strait to settle the tensions. - AFP The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:32:24 -0500 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: New GOA alerts A quick heads up. Saving email bandwidth/storage by giving only URLs www.goa.org specifically: Of UPS, Lawsuits, And Congress http://www.gunowners.org/a101599.htm How You Can Fight Back Against the UPS Handgun "Tax" and Anti-gun "Compromise" Expected http://www.gunowners.org/a101399.htm Gun Control Moving Again on Capitol Hill - -- Gun shows still on the chopping block The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 99 11:30:12 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Followup on ExecutiveOrders.org site (fwd) On Oct 15, Terry A. Hurlbut, III, MD wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Everyone: Yesterday, I sent the list a "pass-along" message concerning a new, dedicated Web site aimed at raising public awareness and consciousness regarding Presidential Executive Orders (EO's) and Decision Directives (PDD's), and a new proposed bill to curtail them, repeal existing National Emergencies, and give standing to _sue_ the President if he tries it again. Here is the text of the proposed legislation: HR 2655 106th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2655 To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 30, 1999 Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. METCALF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- A BILL To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Separation of Powers Restoration Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States. (2) A Supreme Court justice stated, `The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.' Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). (3) James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, stated in Federalist 47, `There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.' (4) Article I of the Constitution provides, `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.' (5) A congressional committee print has noted that, `[b]ecause the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.' 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957). (6) The Supreme Court has stated that, even if Presidents have, without congressional authority, taken actions only the Congress may take, `Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution `in the Government of the United States, or any Department of Officer thereof.' (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)). (7) Treaties or Executive Agreements which purport to assign powers not amongst those specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are non-binding and cannot constitute law. SEC. 3. SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORING RESCISSIONS. (a) REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION- The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) is repealed. (b) TERMINATION OF STATES OF EMERGENCY- (1) IN GENERAL- All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act are terminated 90 days after such date. Such termination shall not affect-- (A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date; (B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or (C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date. (2) DEFINITION- For the purpose of this subsection, the term `national emergency' means a general declaration of emergency made by the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch. (d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO DECLARE EMERGENCY- To the extent that any Act of Congress in effect on the date of enactment of this Act grants to the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch the power to declare a national emergency, such power is hereby divested to the Congress alone. SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS. (a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The President shall include with each Presidential order a statement of the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in fact grants the President the authority claimed for such action. (b) INVALIDITY OF NONCONFORMING ORDERS- A Presidential order which does not include the statement required by subsection (a) is invalid, to the extent such Presidential order is issued under authority granted by a congressional enactment. SEC. 5. EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS. (a) LIMITED EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS- A Presidential order neither constitutes nor has the force of law and is limited in its application and effect to the executive branch. (b) EXCEPTIONS- Subsection (a) does not apply to-- (1) a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; (2) an order given to military personnel pursuant to duties specifically related to actions taken as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; or (3) a Presidential order citing the specific congressional enactment relied upon for the authority exercised in such order and-- (A) issued pursuant to such authority; (B) commensurate with the limit imposed by the plain language of such authority; and (C) not issued pursuant to a ratified or unratified treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement which-- (i) violates the ninth or tenth amendments to the Constitution; or (ii) makes a delegation of power to a foreign government or international body when no such delegating authority exists under the Constitution. SEC. 6. STANDING TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS WHICH IMPACT SEPARATION OF POWERS INTEGRITY. The following persons may bring an action in an appropriate United States court to challenge the validity of any Presidential order which exceeds the power granted to the President by the relevant authorizing statute or the Constitution: (1) CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS- The House of Representatives, the Senate, any Senator, and any Representative to the House of Representatives, if the challenged Presidential order-- (A) infringes on any power of Congress; (B) exceeds any power granted by a congressional enactment; or (C) violates section 4 because it does not state the statutory authority which in fact grants the President the power claimed for the action taken in such Presidential order. (2) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- The highest governmental official of any State, commonwealth, district, territory, or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or the designee of such person, if the challenged Presidential order infringes on the powers afforded to the States under the Constitution. (3) AGGRIEVED PERSONS- Any person aggrieved in a liberty or property interest adversely affected directly by the challenged Presidential order. SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER. In this Act, the term `Presidential order' means-- (1) any Executive order, Presidential proclamation, or Presidential directive; and (2) any other Presidential or Executive action by whatever name described purporting to have normative effect outside the executive branch which is issued under the authority of the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch. - -- Terry A. Hurlbut, III, MD [------------------------- 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: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:22:01 -0700 From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: CNN Poll: .50 Caliber Rifles CNN's web page is running a poll; should sales of the the .50 caliber rifle to the public be restricted? After all, it's a MILITARY rifle, right?. http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/15/cnn.time/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) - -------------- http://www.gvn.net/~creative/ ---------------------- There is no such thing as "e-mail tracking software". Cell phones don't cause explosions in gas stations. Any e-mail that encourages you to "forward it to all your friends" is a hoax. Avoid falling prey to urban legends; check out the Urban Legends page at http://urbanlegends.about.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 99 20:31:54 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #156 (2/2) (fwd) On Oct 16, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] industry, of course. One of this nation's major industries is actually a business/government consortium funded, in part, by tax dollars. All of its standards are set by government. Much of its scheduling is controlled by government. And major parts of its facilities are owned by government. Yet, the corporations keep all the money they make. That would be the commercial airline industry, of course. Taxpayers pay for the airports. FAA sets all standards, but FAA is actually charged with promoting air travel and the commercial airline industry as much as regulating it. So, that industry gets all types of breaks that industries like trucking and busing do not get. For instance, the mandatory rest-per-duty cycle of truck drivers is set by law to provide significantly more rest for truck drivers than that of commercial airline pilots. That's because there is no special federal agency "promoting" the trucking industry, only regulating it. Nearly the same type of arrangement is enjoyed by the national media. The FCC controls and promotes broadcasting in this nation. Supposedly, we are to have a free press. And it is sort of free, unless you try to distribute your "news" over the airwaves. By law, the airwaves are protected for the use of a select few. Furthermore, "free press" only means that a reporter is free to write the type of "news" the boss wants delivered. That presents a palpable problem when just a few major corporations own almost all media outlets in the country. It is, therefore, just a handful of major business concerns who have a controlling influence on the news we see, hear and read. It stands to reason that these major corporations have licenses to protect. They also want to show a profit. Therefore, they contribute heavily to political campaigns and offer many other types of perks and considerations to politicians and bureaucrats who "play ball" with them while in office. And, of course, these major media corporations keep a large stable of well paid lobbyists in Washington. Therefore, there could be a reporter getting ready for that hot expose, confronting a politician or bureaucrat at the same time two of the parent corporation's lobbyists are promoting a favorable law or rule change. One hand washes the other. And so the hot story gets spiked by the editor, in favor of a tax break, or whatever. These are just a couple of the more obvious ways Washington works. All industries play the game. Individual taxpayers cannot get a tax break from Congress, but the Lords and Ladies of Capitol Hill regularly write bills that give wealthy industries and businesses huge breaks. Worse yet, they also are able to get laws, rules and regulations passed to benefit their bottom line -- even when these actions violate the rights of the American people. Anyone remember why we can't put Freon in our cars anymore? Hint: the patent coincidentally expired about the time the law banning Freon was passed. So, while capitalism has not given us totalitarianism, the amount of campaign and lobbying money floating around Washington is causing changes in that law that are adversely impacting on our individual rights. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) reports that at least $8.4 billion is spent each year in Washington just to lobby the federal government. In fact, lobbying has become Washington, D.C.'s largest private sector employer. A whopping 67,062 people work in the lobbying industry. And, lobbying by multinational corporations and foreign governments is a major segment of that lobbying industry. http://flattax.house.gov/st-lobby.htm THREE YEARS = VACATION This issue, being issue #156, makes it three straight years for this publication -- with only two short vacations. Therefore, I am going to pull a "Congress." That is, even though there is more work to do than I can ever get to (dozens of important topics no one else is covering to write about), I will be taking a two week vacation. And, like Congress, my vacation will be a combination of work and fun; except that, unlike a Congress Critter, I will not be continually trying to collect money (campaign donations) for favors from everyone I meet. First, there happens to be an action/adventure/ political novel sitting here 80% completed that needs attention. That's the fun part of the vacation. The second part is the "work," which consists of some manual labor that needs to be completed around here before winter sets in. Oh, and I will also be looking for a literary agent willing to represent the novel and a nonfiction book. Part of the book proposal for the nonfiction book was rewritten slightly as the "State of the Union 1998" and is posted on the Internet. Work will proceed on that again around the first of the year. As always, according to the legal-eagles, I must relate that I have not expended one penny on this newsletter nor received one cent in payment for publication from any sector at any time. The newsletter will always remain free to subscribers who agree to send it to friends exactly as written. The books, however, will be an entirely different story (pun intended) and will be targeted to a well defined market. The business end of that will be handled 100% by professionals, "in a lawful manner," as they say. Primary distribution of the newsletter is handled by subscribers. That is, a few hundred people subscribe from me and pass it around. Therefore, we have absolutely no idea how many people read it every week. I do know, though, that it seems to be getting around rather well, and for that I sincerely thank those many subscribers. Because, really, if I had to take the time each week to maintain a large database, there would be little time left to do the research necessary to write something worth reading. Many quality newsletters have come and gone just because of the time constraints necessary to keep a subscriber database current. As many readers know, I try to answer all mail. Sometimes, though, newsletter mail comes in bunches of 50 to 100 a day. That presents a problem if I want to get any work done. Really, I do try to answer everyone, though. Generally speaking, this newsletter is not intended to break news but rather to present the news in a perspective that is different from the liberal media and with the addition of some background material they often either miss or choose to not report. Therefore, we do not intend to be in competition with any major media outlet. In fact, on the few occasions that we actually broke a story first, it was only because we had been sitting on the information for some time and knew first hand that major news outlets were, too. Actually, I sometimes get a little antsy when important background material does not make the news. So, when I do not want to use the material for some reason, I will send the whole file to a professional journalist who will. And recently that has started to become a reciprocal arrangement, in that I have received great material from newsmakers and reporters who were actually on the scene as things happened. On the other hand, we watch what does not happen, too. For instance, Clinton held a press conference last week. Not one so called "journalist" dared ask a question about China or Russia arming, illegal campaign funds from China -- or the FBI admitting there was (is) a Justice Department cover up -- or the new Waco revelations and that continuing cover up. Nor would any Washington "journalist" ever ask (or even indicate) why all embarrassing and criminal information about government is always classified under national security. Either many of them just do not care about the truth or they truly fear this administration. Jeff in Michigan (http://militia.gen.mi.us/headsup.html) no longer posts the newsletters, although he recently put his web page back up and old issues are there again. However, Forest Glen Durland has nearly the last two years of the publication posted on his California web page, complete with an extensive subject index. (http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm) See y'all on the first Sunday of November. For the next two weeks, my train of (alleged) thought will be devoted almost exclusively to the story line of "In their Sacred Honor," a novel. ~ End ~ NOTE to all within driving distance of Northern Kentucky: The League of Kentucky Property Owners announced they will be hosting Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) as featured speaker at their Fourth Annual Meeting on November 4. The meeting will be held at the Triple Crown Country Club (clubhouse) in Richwood, Kentucky. The cash bar/informal reception starts at 6:30 PM and the General Meeting at 7:00 PM. There is no charge for admission. RSVPs are "helpful but not required." The telephone number is (606) 586-4740 for voice and (606) 586-4741 for fax. [------------------------- 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: Sat, 16 Oct 99 20:33:18 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #156 (1/2) (fwd) On Oct 16, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia October 17, 1999 #156 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm - --------------------------------------------------------------------- PROTECT THIS AMERICAN TRADITION There are not very many major American corporations that will allow their officials to come out publicly and say that they cannot trust their internal system because they have a lot of thieves. However, that's just about what UPS did last week. UPS's management announced that it will no longer ship guns via "ground" because they fear their workers will steal them. Personally, I have always had a greatly different opinion of UPS personnel. However, perhaps we should take the UPS management at their word and not ship anything of value with them again. http://www.ups.com/about/directors.html Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("If It Isn't a Colt, It's Just a Copy") notified the American public they would prefer American citizens purchase the "copy" starting in November. That's what Newsweek and other "news" sources reported, anyway. Colt tried to soften that report a little by saying they would "continue to market their most important, classic handgun products." The very expensive models, in other words. http://www.colt.com/colt Watch for more of this in the near future. The socialists have their marching orders. We are to be disarmed. We are to be disarmed as soon as they can find a way to do it, that is. It's just that the American people are not cooperating. Americans got the message loud and clear. So, gun and ammunition sales have suddenly jumped to over 15 percent above government and industry projections, which were already high. That means, there will be an estimated 375,000 additional rifles, pistols and shotguns sold -- over and above the 2.5 million sales already projected for this year. Because, as we Americans allow the far-left apparatchiks in our State and local governments to sue firearms manufacturers into nonexistence for "damages" done by street punks with illegal firearms, law abiding Americans are actively arming themselves in unprecedented numbers. Actually, this ridiculous lawsuit action is but a carryover from that herd of hungry lawyers who made millions suing the tobacco manufacturers a while back. Anyone who smokes soon realized who paid the bill from that scam. As we reported some months ago, the same group is gearing up for a feeding frenzy against junk food producers, too. In truth, though, this gun grab stuff started with a group called the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. That's a United Nations committee. Two other U.N. agencies are also involved: the U.N. Disarmament Commission and the U.N. Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms. All three committees have been holding meetings for the past few years to devise policies to control "light weapons." http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/~uncjin/uncjin.html The Clinton administration always wanted the American people disarmed. The UN wants it to happen as soon as possible. For instance, here's a snippet from the 1997 UN document SOC/CP/198. Most readers will quickly recognize the terminology used, as the Clinton administration and its sycophants in Congress copied it nearly word for word: "The Commission urged States to consider regulatory approaches to civilian-owned firearms that would cover their storage, transport, licensing, import and export, as well as penalties for their misuse. With many States having experienced an alarming escalation in gun- related crime in recent years, including several highly publicized incidents, delegates reported recent parliamentary moves to ban certain types of weapons and to prevent their use in domestic violence and other types of crimes." This, of course, is mirrored almost exactly by the arguments of all gun-control advocates in the United States. Certain federal officials are working with (receiving their marching orders from?) the UN bureaucrats on this operation and so keep the legislation flowing. The government/media consortium keeps trying to work on us, but it clearly is not effective. When deer hunting season opens in Michigan this year, there will be so many people in the field armed with high-powered weapons that it will actually represent the world's third largest armed encampment. Most of them know how to shoot properly, too. And, that's just hunters, and only in Michigan. The United Nations knows this and it bothers them greatly. The citizens of the United States have small arms immediately available that are better than the small arms used by any military force they could send here. In fact, we actually have more small arms in this country than people. And, there will be another three-million new guns in circulation this year. It's for the children, after all. That is how we protect them. And, if the need ever arises, that is what we will use to insure their freedom. It's an American tradition. PLANNING A MULTI-POLAR Y2K The failed foreign policy of the Clinton administration allowed a backward communist dictatorship like China to become a threat to the security of the people of the United States. For a couple million pieces of silver, Clinton and the Democratic Party (joined by a couple Republicans) allowed the communist Chinese to buy, borrow and steal our top military secrets. Washington says that China is not a real threat to the U.S. yet and will not be for at least another decade. Maybe so. But, that is only if you do not live in one of the twelve American cities the communists are targeting with nukes. Meanwhile, the communist Chinese are doing their best to arm with the most sophisticated weapons they can buy or steal. Worse, China now has a military agreement with Russia, its next door neighbor. And, China's next door neighbor is selling them just about anything they want. While Bill and Boris were yucking it up in Helsinki, Finland, Boris Yeltsin had his top military honchos working out an arrangement with the top Chinese military people. While Clinton was in China talking with the communist dictators, China had their top military people in Russia playing "let's form an Axis." Later, Yeltsin made part of that deal public. In what was called a "major foreign policy address," Yeltsin said that his favorite aim was a multi-polar world in the 21st century in which no single country plays a dominant role. The word to the media in Moscow was that the Russian leadership, including Yeltsin, believes the United States is exerting too much influence globally. And, they had a fix. Moscow would strengthen ties with Europe, China, Japan and India to try to counterbalance U.S. clout. Fast forward to last June and Reuters reports that Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was visiting China to strengthen the strategic partnership between the two neighbors. Beijing and Moscow are seen as trying to chip away at the U.S. position as the world's only super power. "Both sides are playing up their partnership," said a Russian diplomat. "They are using their clout to strengthen their roles in the world." In a meeting with the Deputy Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff, General Valiedin Korapierinykof, senior Chinese General Zhang Wannian urged his guest to develop a "multi-polar world" and establish a "new international political order." Both the Russians and the Chinese are reading from the same page, in other words. Now, back to Clinton at an April 30, 1998 press conference. When Sarah McClendon asked about China, Clinton replied: "We are trying to get to a point where we can work more closely with them and where they cooperate more closely with us. So we're trying to build the same kind of world in the future and not a very different kind of world. And I hope we'll get there." Yeah. "We're trying to build the same kind of world?" Like communist China. A dictatorship? That's what the man who parses his sentences so closely implied. Last June, Agence France Presse reported that, in Beijing, Russian General Valiedin Korapierinykof stated that Russia wants to boost military cooperation with China. That is, they are strengthening relations between Moscow and Beijing, based on a strategic partnership agreement signed in 1996. Also last June, ITAR-TASS reported that President Boris Yeltsin's Chief of Staff, Alaexander Voloshin, said the leaders of Russia and China "emphasized an immense importance of the development of military- technical cooperation between the two countries ... an important step in implementation of the strategic partnership and cooperation policy worked out by the Heads of State" of the two countries. So there's an agreement between Russia and China. And the United States is in their sights. But, is this a political scheme or a military threat? It's hard to tell right now, actually. China is arming as fast as it can. Russia is helping China arm by selling China some of its best military aircraft and warships. China has all of our top secret stuff to offer, as well as those many billions of dollars they receive from us every year because of a gross imbalance in trade arrangement. Russia needs the cash as well as the information. Russia recently started beefing up its military forces and mobilized a few armies. It appears that both Russia and China will be at the ready and have all forces on alert and mobile January 1, 2000. On the other hand, so will we. LOBBYING OUR RIGHTS AWAY Years ago, back when most Democratic politicians still had some common sense and were not preaching socialism, a popular politician used to say that voters must always watch what the government is doing because even those well meaning proponents of capitalism could go too far with it and give us totalitarianism. We're still a ways from totalitarianism here, but there are nevertheless some very interesting arrangements between business and government that should be brought to light. For instance, news accounts abound with quotes from the business and manufacturing sector stating that their particular product is safe as designed because it meets with all federal laws and regulations. That is to say, bureaucrats set all safety standards, so as long as a corporation meets or exceeds those standards, they are to have no worries about lawsuits. Got that? The regulations (standards) are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Which are, of course, those very same politicians and bureaucrats contacted daily by the multibillion dollar lobbying industry in Washington. And, who pays most of the lobbyists? Business and [------------------------- 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 #292 *************************