From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #354 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, June 12 2000 Volume 02 : Number 354 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:09:06 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: Third party voting This is from www.Etherzone.com If freedom and the Constitution are your primary concern, the Libertarian Party is the only vehicle. Lew THIRD PARTY VOTING ANYTHING BUT... WASTING YOUR VOTE By: William Kaliher and Susan Haughton So you think voting third party is a wasted vote? Think for a moment and recall what Clinton's main issue was in the 1992 and 1996 campaigns. Well, that may be tough, but perhaps Bush or Senator Dole's main issue will easily come to mind? It is amazing that politically involved Americans such as those reading this article probably can't recall what the main presidential candidates claimed they'd work for? It may mean you threw away your vote if you voted for them. Then again, perhaps you didn't believe their promises anyway so they were delegated to short term memory. That's not the case with Ross Perot and the Reform party. Perot and the third party voters were concerned with the national debt and the budget. There were so many reform party voters the two main parties had to react. The national debt and budget, virtually never mentioned in earlier elections, were suddenly hot items and important. It led to the two main parties passing a balanced budget. The deficit was even mentioned in both party's 2000 primaries. Obviously, the balanced budget bill isn't perfect and professional politicians in both parties were planning ways to get around it as they passed it. Still, it was a step in the right direction and it was a direct result of the voters who refused to throw their votes away. The third party voters shook the main parties into taking action. The wasted vote theory can work even in a primary. Ironically, those that throw around the "You're wasting your vote if you vote for this candidate who doesn't have a chance," are in reality the very voters who throw away their votes time after time. In the recent Republican primary many anti-abortion Republicans thought they had to have a winner at any cost. Like sheep they listened to the party machine and although preferring another candidate cast their vote for Mr. G. W. Bush. First the argument was we have to have a winner, then the argument, we have to stop the liberal John McCain. It didn't matter that John McCain had a much longer and better record on conservative issues than Mr. Bush, it was necessary to cast him in that light to ensure a Bush candidacy. However, the Republicans who supported McCain didn't waste or throw away their vote. Bush has to take the McCain voters seriously, He has to reinforce his dedication to the military and veterans and address campaign reform. The McCain voters additionally signaled a movement away from the two established parities occurring within the party itself . The McCain voters were saying again, there's not a dime's worth of difference in the two main parties beyond which special interest groups they choose to pander. Combined with continued low voter turnout, the increased move to third parties and now McCain leading a movement within an established party the powers and their Socialist media allies have to double their efforts to crucify anyone leading a third party move that might lead to the reestablishment of government operating under our constitution and returning to traditional American values. Neither Bush or Gore inspire the same passion McCain brought forth from his supporters. Eventually the establishment will be successful in completely suppressing the people's will or the voters will rise up and reclaim their country. In that case elections will again mean something and now they only mean something measured by how many people vote third party. The group of Republicans that totally wasted their vote were the ones who preferred Allen Keyes, Gary Bauer or Steve Forbes but cast their votes for Bush to make sure they had a winner in the presidential election. Talk about wasted votes, these people voted against themselves and would have done more for their issue by staying home. Because they threw away their votes by casting ballots for Bush they ensured the three strongest anti-abortion candidates didn't get many votes in the primaries. Because Keyes, Bauer and Forbes didn't do well Mr. Bush can now take the anti-abortion wing of the Republican party for granted. He is free to pick a pro-abortion running mate as Keyes, Bauer and Forbes didn't pick up enough votes to make him afraid of that wing of the party. A wasted vote is when one does not vote for the person most representative of their views. I would like to return to the Perot runs for the presidency. It pains me that Republican friends and especially conservative friends whine about Perot putting Clinton in the White House. That mantra is frankly absurd. It highlights the fact their party has betrayed them. They grasp at anything to blame for their party's failure except the party's actual philosophy and failed leadership. If someone loathes the Clinton administration the last person they should criticize is Perot. Instead, they should crawl to Texas and kiss Mr. Perot on the fanny for what he did to the Clintons. They should humble themselves and thank Mr. Perot for saving them. The figures clearly demonstrate Mr. Perot brought new voters out and took equally from the Democrats and Republicans. Had Mr. Perot not run in those elections Mr. Clinton would have still won both elections, but he would have additionally taken over fifty percent of the vote. Can one even imagine how bad the Clinton regime would have been had he been able to claim a mandate by having over fifty percent of the vote? Thank God, the Perot voters didn't waste their votes. Now we have Bush and Gore. If they represent more of your views than any other candidate you should vote for them. When I say represent more of your views, I don't mean you sit back and say I think Bush or Gore will do this if elected. I mean, you know that Bush or Gore will work to get your particular issue accomplished if you vote for him. If you don't know that and there is another candidate who better represents your beliefs and will actually work to accomplish what he says then the wasted vote will be when throw away your vote voting for what you hope will be a winner. I supported the Republican Revolution. Each night I turn on my television and look for the Public Broadcasting Company. If I don't find it I know I didn't waste my vote by supporting the Republican Revolution. I'd know they kept their word. Unfortunately, it always turns up on my set and I know another group of professional politicians broke their word. I know we elected enough Republicans to kill the Public Broadcasting Company and the National Endowment for the Arts. Should anyone vote for any of the Republicans that broke their promise when they had the power then they remain suckers. Their vote rightfully doesn't need to be a concern to the crooked politicians for they will waste it again trusting them. I won't fall into that trap. No one owns my vote. My vote is never knowingly wasted. Construction men often say, the first drop of rain that hit's you is the lord's wish, the second drop of rain is your fault. I say with some politicians we don't know until they're in office, but once we know we should come in out of the rain and quit throwing our votes away by constantly supporting spineless party hacks. The Bush candidacy is already damaging the political process. Conservative Republicans might hold their nose and waste their vote by voting for the perceived winner but they won't work for him. The GOP will lose the power of the grass roots, the heart and soul of the party and the country will suffer because the power wing of the Republican will have emulated the Democrat party and they will completely take over the country. If the Republicans can't be trusted to keep the Democrat's socialist agenda at bay, then where will we turn. If Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader or another candidate seriously represents more of your views than do Gore or Bush and you don't vote for them then you have truly thrown your vote down the toilet. Let Bush see that Buchanan gets less than five percent of the vote and he knows he can take Republicans for granted concerning foreign involvement, tax cutting, the Red China policy and abortion. Let Mr. Nader take less than five percent of the environmental vote and Gore can take those voters for granted. However, if many people with strong beliefs about these other issues step up to the plate and vote their convictions rather than voting Bush or Gore as they think they are the only two that have a chance, then that voters loses even if his candidate wins the election. Remember the Perot voters had their issues catered to during the past eight years because both parties didn't want those voters going third party again. Those people's votes actually meant something and influenced the policy of the Democrats and Republicans. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 00 20:44:55 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Tactics That Work -- 1 (fwd) On Jun 10, JASPAR@AOL.COM wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] (From Alan Korwin) Were you the one who asked me, "What can I do to help save our rights?" I get this question so often, and here's an answer finally, the first of a series I'm developing, called -- TACTICS THAT WORK by Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America As soon as you're done reading this, 1. Take out a full sheet of paper, and at the top, write the name of one of your best gun buddies. 2. Make the phone call and say, "What do you say we go to dinner one night, and talk about gun stuff and 'issues that concern us as free people.'" You can say it's your own idea if you like, I'm not fussy. Just arrange to get your butt out to dinner to talk. Note: This is the second hardest part of this plan. 3. Then ask who else the two of you might invite to this little dinner and discussion. Agree up front on separate checks. Write all the names on your sheet of paper. That's what it's for. 4. Pick a restaurant that can seat the bunch of you. One big table is the key, so you can all hear each other. A side room with privacy is even better. Warning: Finding a good spot is the hardest part of this plan. Pick a date about four weeks away, and call your friends. Are you with me so far? Are you willing to do "all this work" to have a real positive impact? Or doesn't your mama allow you to go out at night? 5. Go out to dinner and have a good time. Because of the common ground built into your invite list, things will pretty much happen automatically. Between the bunch of you, all sorts of good things will start coming up just by themselves. What's really happening: You're using the power of the right to assemble to help guard your freedom. AN EASY PLAN TO MAKE THE DINNER EXCEPTIONAL If you have the guts, try this: 1. START. Fifteen minutes after the starting time, ding the side of a glass with a spoon, to make the universally recognized "call to order" sound. 2. INTRODUCE. Say hello, and you and your buddy introduce yourselves, and describe who you are and what you do. Then have everyone else do the same. 3. DESCRIBE. When the last person finishes, speaking as the host of the dinner, say you invited everyone to discuss "issues that concern us as free people" and ask for two ground rules -- a. only one person at a time talks, so everyone can hear b. stay on the subject 4. OPEN. Take out a pad. Ask your friends to start on the following question: What's the problem we face? Write down the flood of answers. Stay with it until it's a long list. 5. CONTINUE. When the time seems right, ask another group question: "So what are the solutions?" Write down the flood of answers. Then just roll with the flow. 6. WRAP. You will be amazed how much good stuff comes up, how many people get energized to take action and do stuff, and how quickly the evening goes. Before the first person leaves, ask everyone if they'd like to come back next month, same time and place. Book the restaurant again while you're there. OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOOD TO DO 1. Get some of those stick-on name badges at an office supply store. 2. Agree to swap email addresses so you can all reach each other. 3. Write up the lists from your pad and give everyone copies. 4. Find some worthwhile literature and pass out copies. 5. Think about more people you could invite next month. 6. Ask everyone if they think they could assemble their own friends for a dinner, and help spread this program. 7. Be a big shot -- start out by buying everyone a round of drinks. It feels good, sets a nice tone, and in the end doesn't burn too big a hole in your wallet. 8. Instead of using a pad to make a list of ideas, put a big sheet of paper on the wall and use that with a marker. When everyone can see the list as it grows, it spurs more ideas. Don't use a permanent marker and get ink on the wall like an idiot. For more on this and related programs, visit gunlaws.com. - --------------------------------------------------------- For Publication, 746 Words, 6/11/00 One-time North American Serial Rights Copyright 2000 Alan Korwin Not-for-profit circulation is approved. - -------------------------------------------------------- Alan Korwin is the author of seven best-selling books on gun law, including Gun Laws of America, the unabridged guide to federal gun law. He can be reached at gunlaws.com. Contact Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS "We publish the gun laws" 12629 N. Tatum #440 Phoenix, AZ 85032 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Book orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com BRAND NEW -- "Licensed to Carry" by Greg Jeffery Check out this 30-State Shall-Issue License Guide, find out what it takes to get a carry license in each state. Use the link below. ALSO -- "Traveler's Guide to the Gun Laws of the 50 States" Year 2000 Edition. Use the link below. LOOK AT "GUN LAWS OF AMERICA" YOURSELF -- If you knew all your rights you might demand them. Use the link below. AVAILABLE AT LAST: Gun-owner guides for -- - -------------------------------------- AZ, CA, FL, NJ, NY, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA - -------------------------------------- Use the link below. http://www.gunlaws.com Guns Save Lives [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jun 00 07:32:51 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: 50-Million-Round March (Korwin Press Release) (fwd) On Jun 11, JASPAR@AOL.COM wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] BLOOMFIELD PRESS 12629 N. Tatum #440, Phoenix, AZ 85032 Phone 602-996-4020, Fax 602-494-0679 800-707-4020, www.gunlaws.com - ------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 11, 2000 Contact: Felicity Bower 1-800-707-4020 "50-MILLION-ROUND MARCH" SET FOR DAD'S DAY Parents Day Hopelessly Politicized Reporters and news media executives nationwide are on a tightrope this week as Dads across America, anticipating Father's Day next Sunday, are preparing for what's billed as "The 50-Million-Round March," a response to last month's Moms March. "They're going to try to fire off 50 million rounds of ammunition at training ranges across America on Sunday, and I'll bet they do it," says Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, who has been following the extensive march preparations. The mainstream media has been silent about it, but men everywhere seem to be looking forward to it, he says. "It's simple and elegant -- a wholesome family outing in support of the Bill of Rights." Endorsed by a host of national civil rights groups involved in firearms issues, the 50-Million-Round March (which can be found on the Internet at http://www.50mrmarch.com) is a grassroots effort being led by Jeff Head, an engineer from Emmett, Idaho (jeffhead@bigplanet.com). Joanie Fischer, who is handling media relations for the event said, in a note to Korwin, "It's time to draw a line in the sand, and prevent the erosion of the human right which ensures the sanctity of all others. I am focused on those liberties for which our founders sacrificed so dearly, to ensure our freedom inheritance." Yeah, it's a deep quote, but it's what she had to say. Fischer can be reached at 50mrmarch-joanie@bigfoot.com. "I know just what she means," says Alicia Wadas, founder and President of Mothers Arms, a group concerned about a person's "inviolable right to self defense," based in Phoenix (http://www.mothersarms.org). "I applaud the fathers who are stepping up to their parental responsibility of keeping their children safe through education and by spending time with their children. As parents it is our right and responsibility to be the first line of defense for our families. Laws and 911 are there for the punishment and the aftermath. Becoming educated and trained in self protection will help save our children." "At 911 crime scenes, police are just highly armed stenographers who draw chalk lines, not their guns, a short while after you call," says a Washington, D.C., civil-rights lobbyist who prefers to remain unnamed. "The Dad's March is the perfect response to misguided efforts of women who are sadly misled by the very media that claims to keep them informed," she says. "Many of these women actually believe the police have a legal duty to protect them -- but that's only true on TV." "Dial 911 and prepare to die," says Aaron Zelman, quoting a book he publishes, as head of a Jewish group concerned about government disarmament of the public (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org). "I don't really expect the media to provide the free publicity for the Dad's March that they did for the Mom's March," Zelman says. "But let's see if they can also ignore the ranges across America that will be packed with families on Father's Day, exercising their rights, and loudly saying 'No!' to infringement by our own government in Washington." ### Bloomfield Press is the largest publisher of gun law books in the country, founded in 1989. Gun Laws of America for police department and news media review is free on request, call 1-800-707-4020. The author is available for interview, call us to schedule. Call, mail, fax or click for our free catalog. It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules. Contact: Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS We publish the gun laws. 12629 N. Tatum #440 Phoenix, AZ 85032 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jun 00 19:41:06 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: [slick-d] Re: Federal government must die] (fwd) I thought this was a good idea, but they forgot the yarmulkas.....:-) On Jun 11, David K. Schumann wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Bruce, with all respect for your position as a JPFO founder and field rep, I think you have been too close to Mr. Zelman to see the good that the group has done. Out here on the left coast in Santa Clara County, one of the most left wing counties in the country, JPFO ownership played an important role in STOPPING at attempt by our county Board of Supervisors to enact even MORE anti-gun legislation last year. JPFO members posted themselves outside council chambers on the evening they were to take the matter up and gave out 6 inch by 5.5 inch peel off labels. The labels were red with a yellow Star of David on them, in the center of which was the word "gun owner." When members of the local members council of the NRA and other RKBA supporters showed up, we got those labels and stuck them on our chests, and then went into the Board Chambers. The leftwing Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors couldn't miss the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of the attendees that night were wearing those badges. IT DID INTIMIDATE THEM. They postponed taking up the anti-gun measure, and when we showed up similarly equipped at the later hearing, they killed it. A very sweet victory indeed. Dave Bruce Chesley wrote: > > Speaking as an early jpfo Founder and its now former eight > year New England Field Rep., zelman never had, does not now, > and never will have a genuine desire to destroy gun control. He > has devolved jpfo into his personal money centric micro nra. If > gun control went away, how would he make the same or better > income elsewhere ? > Besides, we're out of time with the 2A. I have puclicly posted > to other lists that, based upon my research and the anti 2A trend, > I believe that you have, at best, until 2005 to legally own anything. > If confiscation doesn't happen by 2005, it'll happen by 2010. > The nazi rifle associations' historical and ongoing treason > against the 2A is the major factor. Go to http://www.gpo.gov - > the federal Government Printing Office - and obtain the nras' public > testimony to Congress FOR the 1934 nfa, 1938, ffa, 1968 gca, etal. > Note who from the nra sats what. Via online used book search, find, > buy and read "Gun Control" by Robert J. Kukla, edited for publication > by former nra President, Harlon Carter. It documents the nras' > treason with the 1968 gca, and a few times, states that these > treasons were not new to the nra. > Bruce Chesley > Truth is a terrible cross to bear. > Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.". Thomas Paine > Treason for $$$: ccrkba, jpfo, leaa, nra, saf. > > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 18:06:53 EDT Swftl@aol.com writes: > *What about the JPFO? (www.jpfo.org)?--Susan > > In a message dated 06/04/2000 7:16:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > excalibur25@juno.com writes: > The only worthwhile pro 2A organizations are Gun > Owners of America (GOA), Law Enforcement Professionals for > the Second Amendment (LEPSA) and the Second Amendment Sisters > (SAS-AIMM) - -- Esse Quam Videri [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 00 11:18:29 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] Sixth grader targeted for pro-gun remarks (fwd) On Jun 12, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000330_xnjdo_sixth_grad.s= html THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS Sixth grader targeted for pro-gun remarks 'A' student defends 2nd Amendment, flagged as violence risk=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 By Jon E. Dougherty =A9 2000 WorldNetDaily.com =20 School officials at Harbor Lights Middle School flagged a Holland, Michigan boy as potentially dangerous because the 12-year-old suggested to= a teacher that one way to prevent school shootings would be to arm instructors. Derek Loutzenheiser, a model student who had such good grades that some teachers recommended he be tested early for a popular standardized pre-college performance test, made his comments in early March, after bein= g asked by a social studies teacher what he thought might make kids safer in school. =20 Derek had been asked to participate in a classroom discussion about "school shootings and safety," said the sixth grader's father, Tim Loutzenheiser. =20 "My son simply stated that his opinion was that he would feel safer = if some of the adults at the school were trained and allowed to carry firearms," Mr. Loutzenheiser told WorldNetDaily. =20 His reply caused him to be "flagged" as a potential violence risk by teachers and school administrators, who then contacted his parents to suggest they meet with the school's "Hazard and Risk Assessment Team." =20 "My wife and I were in disbelief when they (school officials) telephoned us and told us that's what they wanted to do," Loutzenheiser said. "We asked, 'Do you have the right kid?'" =20 In resulting talks with school officials, Loutzenheiser said he learned that his son "often spoke favorably about the First and Second Amendments, but the comment he made to his Social Studies teacher was the one that triggered this action." =20 School officials told the couple that because of Derek's comments he should be separated from the other students and forced to enter the school= 's "Mentor" program, where he would be studied by an adult supervisor who wou= ld monitor Derek's thought processes. =20 "We were told that this would be in the best interest of my son, and by doing this the school would not have to involve Social Services," Loutzenheiser said. "We refused." =20 At that point, the couple contacted an attorney in nearby Grand Rapids, Michigan -- one referred to them through the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. The couple has also been told by a representative from the Rutherford Institute, an international legal and educational civil liberties organization, that "they would be willing to take on this issue." =20 Loutzenheiser said when he and his wife, Shelly, arrived for the Hazard Team meeting Mar. 8, "We were outnumbered 7 to 2." He told WorldNetDaily that he wanted to make a good first impression with the members, so he shook each member's hand and introduced himself. =20 He also told them he had brought along a tape recorder and would be taping the proceedings since none of the legal organizations that said the= y would represent him could send a representative to the meeting on such sho= rt notice. =20 "My wife and I both saw a transformation from 'smugness' ... to look= s of great concern on some of their faces," he said. =20 "What was odd about the purpose of this whole meeting," said Loutzenheiser, "was that three of the team members were Derek's teachers, and each of them said they didn't know there was any 'situation' with him. That got me to thinking, 'Then why are we here?'" =20 However, and though "team" members denied it, the elder Loutzenheise= r said he believes teachers and school administrative personnel began to for= m a bad impression of his son when, in January of this year, the sixth grade= r refused to sign a "Red Letter" vow of peace to celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday. =20 "The letter, which was written by the principal," Loutzenheiser said= , "asked the students to take an oath to turn in their friends for suspiciou= s activity, to vow to never defend themselves if attacked, and something to the effect of never to use a gun or other weapons. Derek simply told the principal, 'I'm not signing that.' =20 "I think that's what got him 'noticed' by some of the administrative staff at least," he said. =20 Of the meeting with "team" members, Loutzenheiser said, "We got righ= t to the point and determined that the charges against my son are without merit. They all assured me that he is a wonderful student, gets straight A's, and because he is a little more advanced academically (at their suggestion he took the ACT test and scored very well) they feel he may nee= d an 'adult' to talk to about issues." =20 Loutzenheiser admitted he didn't know what team members were implyin= g about having Derek "talk to an adult about issues." He added, "We were abl= e to determine that because my son knows and understands political and Constitutional issues so well, that he often speaks in terms not typical o= f a 12-year-old, and we should be assured they have no issues with this." =20 The couple believes Derek's Social Studies teacher was the impetus f= or the inquiry. =20 "She felt concern when Derek stated -- when she asked -- that he wou= ld feel safer if some of the adults would be trained and have access to firearms at school," said Derek's father. "Because this teacher felt this [was an] irrational threat, she spoke to other 'team' members who are also Derek's teachers." =20 The couple said they discovered that there had been a series of similar misunderstandings involving some of the things Derek had said in school -- none of which were threatening or dangerous. =20 One teacher, said Loutzenheiser, stated that he heard Derek speak of taking the hunter's safety course -- which was offered through the school = - -- and that Derek sometimes spoke about how he liked hunting. =20 Another teacher said that in her class, where his son helps write th= e school paper, he was tasked with reviewing a video game. The teacher, he said, felt that the game might contain violence but didn't feel "concern" until "after she spoke with the 'team.'" =20 One of the vice principals, the couple said, also felt Derek may nee= d some "mentoring" because he was "attacked by three older students last September, in which Derek fought back and deterred his attackers on school property," Loutzenheiser said. =20 "They (school officials) wanted to reinforce how understanding they were, in light of the fact that the school has a zero tolerance policy -- = no fighting even in self defense -- and how Derek was not punished in any way for defending himself," Loutzenheiser said. =20 However, his wife Shelly had inquired of teachers and school officia= ls just a day before the meeting occurred, and "there were no issues yesterda= y, but they seemed to remember some today," he said. =20 "We also asked them why, if these problems were so terrible, no one had bothered to pick up the phone and call us before it came to this," sai= d Loutzenheiser. =20 More disturbing to the couple was the school's constant alluding to = "a list" -- ostensibly the same "list" their son, Derek, was on, albeit briefly. =20 "No one really explained what this 'list' was," Loutzenheiser said, "but from the sound of it, if you raised anyone's eyebrows at the school -= - - for any reason -- you made this 'list.'" =20 Jerry Klomparens, principal of Harbor Lights Middle School, told WorldNetDaily he could not discuss cases or incidents involving specific children. However, he spoke briefly about the school's "Mentor Program" policies, and said they were only administered after school officials obtained permission from a student's parents. =20 "We believe any educational processes must first come from parents," Klomparens said. "This program is only designed to help parents" meet special needs of certain students. =20 The principal explained that Harbor Lights uses the mentoring progra= m to "match students who have particular interests up with teachers or adult= s (who are volunteers) who have similar interests." =20 When asked about the so-called "list" that Loutzenheiser mentioned, Klomparens reiterated that it was school policy "not to discuss the status of our students." He also said it was possible that some errors may have been made in the past in explaining the "mentor" program to some parents. =20 "It's not a real formal program," he said, adding that sometimes teachers suggest students whom they believe would benefit from it. Other than having mutual interests, Klomparens said neither teacher nor adult volunteer mentors have received any special training or qualifications. =20 But the Loutzenheisers remain unconvinced. =20 "Each of these people on the 'team' probably had no issue with Derek= , but by virtue of assembling together and talking, they were able to feed upon each others' concerns, no matter how small, and allowed them to grow,= " said Tim Loutzenheiser. "We're convinced that Derek will now be placed und= er a microscope for observation more than ever." =20 =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 =20 Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily. [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 00 11:19:37 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] Alan Keyes - Disciplining the Judiciary (fwd) On Jun 11, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] SATURDAY JUNE 10 2000 Alan L. Keyes, currently running for the GOP presidential nomination, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Reagan administration. The author of two books, "Our Character, Our Future" and "Masters of the Dream," Keyes is recognized as a leader in the conservative movement and one of today's most demanded orators. Discouraged conservatives frequently lament that much of the moral degradation of America is actually due to liberal dominance of the court system. In a kind of strategic checkmate, we are told, the left has established its stronghold in the branch of government most removed from the will of the people and, from this secure position, it has been systematically undermining the moral foundations of our political order. It certainly is true that the courts have been a consistent and prominent source of assault on the moral integrity of the country. Judges have been willing and able to remove from our law venerable moral principles providing crucial support for the regime of ordered liberty. When they have deigned to proceed by argument rather than fiat, their arguments have frequently been patently false. The whole array of spurious and contradictory legal support for the "wall of separation" between church and state is just one example. A real wall built so irrationally wouldn't stand for a minute but, in the strange new world of liberal justice, they have the thing propped-up pretty well -- much to the disadvantage of the piety and morality which are essential to the preservation of our liberty. Increasingly, judges are issuing decisions that contradict Declaration principles by undermining, for example, our commitment to the belief that we are equal because we are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Completely discouraged conservatives counsel despair in response to this situation; less discouraged conservatives typically urge that we swallow hard and then go to work for George W. Bush so that he can correct matters with his judicial appointments. Rather than taking counsel from discouragement, however, let's take a look at our situation in light of the Constitution itself. What remedies are available to begin repairing the moral wreckage that a liberal judiciary has caused in our society? As is usually the case in seeking solutions to our political travails, the key lies in remembering the basic principles that govern the nation. In this case, we need to remember first of all that judges are not supreme rulers. America was not intended to be a judicial despotism -- and, presumably, we can recall sufficiently what the phrase "government of, by and for the people" means to see that this is the case. With recourse to the Founders, we can overcome the dangerous presumption we have developed that whatever judges say from the bench is final because the law is whatever the judges say it is. The moral damage caused by judges will not cease until the people and their representatives remember that judges, too, are required to respect the fundamental principles on which the nation is founded. When judges make decisions that clearly contradict the first principles of American life, then we have the duty to refuse to accept those decisions. We must deliberate with prudence as to the precise form of our refusal and we may even act in conformity with decisions that are less fundamentally opposed to our national principles than others, lest we give scandal by resisting what many of our fellow citizens suppose to be the authority of law. But when judges fail in their duty to conform their decisions to the principles of American justice, we are bound to resist -- the only question is how to do so prudently and effectively. How, then, should this resistance be conducted? The simple solution lies in an examination of the structure of our government and the principles that underlie that structure. Precisely because the courts were never intended to hold tyrannical power in America, both the federal Constitution and most state constitutions put mechanisms in the hands of both the legislature and the executive -- aimed at making sure that the judiciary cannot abuse its position and at defending the people against judicial usurpation. The Congress of the United States has the power, for instance, to determine the jurisdiction of the lower courts in the federal system. I haven't noticed the Congress using this power in order to prevent judicial abuse lately, but it exists and could be used at any time. Legislators also have the power to impeach judges. It is sometimes argued that this power is irrelevant to the question of restraining an overly ambitious or ideologically tainted judiciary, because judges can be impeached only for personal or professional misbehavior. But this is not true. The impeachment power was not intended just to punish malfeasance. It was intended to prevent the usurpation of the powers of one branch by another. And if the judiciary is so acting as to encroach upon the prerogatives of the legislature, the legislature has the right and duty to insist that judges alter their practices or be removed from the bench. These mechanisms may well lie dormant, however, if the executive and legislative branches believe that the people will not support a serious attempt to discipline the judiciary. Hence, the importance of a citizenry schooled and confident in its duty to demand that the judicial power be pruned back when it grows too great or in the wrong direction. The judiciary, along with the other two branches of government, must continually be measured by the just will of the people. If the people cease to take thought whether the government, which is their instrument, is acting in accord with the principles of self-government, then self- government will indeed soon cease. And it is true that the judges are, for the most part, shielded from the direct action of the people, who must keep watch on them through the intermediate vigilance of the other two branches of government. But, in the wisdom of the Founders, we can rely on the fact that the executive and the legislative branches have their own institutional reasons to be jealous of an overweening judiciary. And so a people that knows its business will probably not have to spur those two branches too hard before, in defense of the balance of powers, they will be willing to take action against overly ambitious judges. Overall, there is little reason to despair that the judges are out of our reach. What, then, of the strategy of uniting behind George W. Bush to solve the problem of an activist and corrupting judiciary through the power of presidential appointment to the bench? This is perhaps the most common argument given to moral conservatives who are squeamish about voting for Bush. And I agree -- up to a point -- that judicial appointments are important. But if conservatives allow themselves to be convinced that electing George W. Bush is the key, via the power of judicial appointments, to overturning an era of the morally corrosive liberal judiciary, then I will beg to differ. The recent years of Republican control of the White House, including the eight year administration of the truly conservative Ronald Reagan, were long enough and included enough appointments that they should have produced a clear and solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court. They did not. Partly this was because of ringers like David Souter. We were told to trust the elder Mr. Bush that Souter was a reliable conservative. We did trust Mr. Bush and David Souter is not a reliable conservative. A more interesting example of the impotence of the appointment power alone is Sandra Day O'Connor. Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan appointee. On paper, she looked like a solid, pro-life conservative justice. But her voting record over the years has not been reliable at all. So, what's wrong with the appointment power? We underestimate the effect on judges of living and working in a political environment where the prevailing wind blows in a certain ideological direction. Judges become part of a community that defines ideological growth as the abandonment of conservative principles. In the atmosphere of confident liberal power that conservatives have allowed to fill Washington, the conservative principles of George W. Bush appointees will likely wither on the vine. The appointment power will not be decisive unless it is supplemented by a change in political environment that nurtures the principles of the conservative judges who are appointed. Conservatives have lost cultural and political control in Washington by continually advancing political leaders who cannot articulate or defend conservative views in a way that moves anyone to political action -- either the opinion leaders or the grassroots to take real action. The most important requirement for establishing the needed change is leadership that can effectively promote and defend the conservative viewpoint. Only such political leadership can encourage and sustain conservative confidence among the people and in their elected representatives. With such confidence, the available Constitutional and political mechanisms for restraining an ambitious judiciary will be perfectly sufficient. Abraham Lincoln taught us that, in times of crisis, the Constitution need not be a suicide pact. It does not oblige us to watch helplessly while liberal judges run amuck. If the people put leaders of competence and courage into the executive and legislative branches, the judges can be brought back into line. But this is nothing new. The Founders have left us with the instruments we need to accomplish self-government with justice. We have inherited all that we need except the one thing that cannot be inherited -- political will. What is essential is the determination of the people and their representatives to use these instruments once again. Do you want to support the conservative reform of the bench? Resist the temptation to believe that it can be done on the sly, by slipping into office politicians who are reluctant to lead. Even if there is desire to do the right thing, such nominees will be challenged and an account demanded of why they are best for the job. At such moments, politicians who can't, or won't, defend the conservative agenda are worse than useless -- their failure contributes to the general opinion, particularly among elites, that conservative principles cannot be defended. In the long run, it is this opinion, not lack of the appointment power, that dooms the conservative agenda in the judiciary and everywhere else. The judiciary will be disciplined not merely by better appointments but by a political leadership willing to discipline it and able to lead the people in forming and sustaining a principled determination to do so. Only such a leadership can hope to use the appointment power to real effect. A principled, determined and articulate conservative leadership, and the grassroots support it would receive, can achieve the success America needs. The duty of citizens now is to demand such leadership and offer it their support. If we choose principle first, the appointment power will soon be added -- and under circumstances that will permit it truly to make a difference. [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #354 *************************