From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #365 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Tuesday, July 11 2000 Volume 02 : Number 365 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Jul 00 09:04:00 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Patriot redux: 'Did the Redcoats Burn American Prisoners? ' (fwd) On Jul 09, Jurist wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Jurist wrote: >Before I concede that (Brits never burning civilians in a church), I can >say with conviction that the American government did, moreover the writer >below indicates that the film might not be so far off the mark after all. [in burning, like the title suggests, American prisoners.] TSBench@aol.com wrote: > Actually, he does no such thing. Did you not read it beforehand or is >your sense of proportion in need of a tuneup? > Regards, > TSB Hmmmm, I dunno TS. Maybe it was the title of the article: 'Did the Redcoats Burn American Prisoners?' Maybe it was the author's introduction to his article in which he describes how British troops "burned American prisoners:" >"I was doing some research in the Pennsylvania Gazette during the period and found a peculiar and disturbing incident in an episode of the war called "The Battle of Crooked Billet." >"American soldiers who had been surprised by British troops marching out of Philadelphia in 1778, claimed that wounded Americans were not given quarter and then were burned alive. >"Here is a sample deposition from the period: . . . Perhaps it was the the text of the deposition itself: >"Deposition of Saml. Erwin >"15 May 1778 >"Bucks Co'y, ss. >"The Examination of Saml. Erwin, upon Oath before me, Andrew Long, Esqr. one of the Justices of said Co'y, That the said Deponant sayeth, that on the first day of May, 1778, after the battle between the Militia, under command of Genl Lacey, and the Engliish, he the Deponant saw a smoak in one of his Fields, and after the enemy had retreated went out to see what was the ocassion thereof; was much surprised to find one of the Militia men lying dead, his Clothes burning & near consumed, which had burnt the Body black; he thinks the man was set on fire before he was dead, from this circumstance that his arms were standing nearly erect; he further sayeth, he saw three other Bodies in Thos. Cravens Field burnt in an inhuman manner, & further said not." Re: Patriot redux: 'Did the Redcoats Burn American Prisoners? ' http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/hollywood/riley07-06-00.htm Perhaps it was supported by additional comments at the researchers page, regarding other bad Redcoat conduct, not ness. connected to burning. I can't defend the factual assertions one way or the other, as I am not a Revolutionary war era expert, but my guess is that the researcher has done his homework. Riley's Farm - Revolutionary War History http://www.rileysfarm.com/ In Liberty, Rick V. - -- Guns Are Tyranny Control - http://www.crosswinds.net/~right2arms - ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ------------------------------------------------------------------ [------------------------- 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, 9 Jul 00 10:00:44 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] VIN -- gun control lies, long version (fwd) On Jul 9, SlickEditor@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz The two most threadbare 'gun control' lies I don't know if they're the two biggest lies told by the victim disarmament gang, but they're easily the most threadbare, climbing out of their graves over and over to spread their stench like rotting vampires that have been killed but never properly staked. First, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore and others of his ilk keep insisting the reason we need "mandatory child safety trigger locks" is to substantially stop the "12 children killed by firearms every day in America." Let's give a tip of the hat to historian Clayton E. Cramer (writing in the July 1 edition of Shotgun News) for going directly to the web site of the Centers for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki.htm -- search under ICD 922.0) and looking up the actual number of American children under the age of 15 who are killed in handgun accidents each year. For 1997, that number was 21 -- down from a high of 55 in 1990. No, that's not a typo. Twenty-one children dead in handgun accidents in the whole of America in the entire year 1997. Now, those are sad incidents. But compare them to the number of Jewish and Gypsy children who died in Europe -- not as collateral casualties of war but at the hands of "legitimate" governments -- in each of the years 1939 through 1945, because their parents allowed themselves to be disarmed under "gun control" laws which never disarm government police or other criminals. Government-mandated airbags seriously injure more children than die in handgun accidents. Lightning and amusement park accidents and drowning in mop buckets beat out handguns in causing accidental deaths of children under 15. So why the national hysteria -- and more importantly, where do Mr. Gore and the "gun control" gang come up with that "12-a-day" statistic? They get to "12 a day" by adding in all deaths of "children" up through the age of 19 which are firearm related, including suicides, 18- and 19-year old drug gangsters shooting each other in disputes over drug distribution turf, and even 19-year-old "children" righteously shot dead by cops or law-abiding citizens while in the act of committing rapes, murders, and armed robberies. The question I'd like to hear someone stand up and ask candidate Gore (assuming we still had a system in which real citizens could ask unscreened questions of our candidates, of course) is: "Mr. Vice President, I was the victim of a sexual assault, but I managed to get to my nightstand and get my dad's old Smith and shoot my assailant after he'd blackened both my eyes and broken my jaw. You say mandatory trigger locks would stop 12 child gunshot deaths every day -- I assume you're leading up to a law that would require those locks to be in place all the time. "But the CDC says that in order to get to that number, you're including in the so-called 'children' in your statistic 18- and 19-year-olds righteously shot while committing rapes and other serious crimes. Is the death of my 19-year-old assailant one of the 'child gunshot deaths' you want to prevent? Is it your plan to require my gun to be locked up in such a way that I won't be able to use it to defend myself the next time a 19-year-old thug decides to break into my house and try to rape me? Are you saying it's 'safer' for me to be beaten and raped than for me to have an unlocked gun to defend myself?" # # # The second most threadbare and putrescent "gun control" lie is that those of us who want to maintain the great American tradition of a populace armed and thus free, consistently misquote and misunderstand the Second Amendment. (For the record, by the way, the Bill of Rights only acknowledges pre-existing human rights -- these rights would not disappear even if the populace were foolish enough to attempt a repeal.) Anyway: As this argument goes, we gun nuts insist on quoting only the second clause of the amendment: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," while purposely dropping and ignoring the introductory clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." What this introductory clause proves is that the Founding Fathers didn't want each and every law-abiding American to continue owning firearms of military usefulness, the victim disarmament gang patronizingly explains. Instead, it proves that Americans were meant to retain a right to carry firearms only when they're actively on duty in the regular army or the National Guard. Don't laugh -- this bizarre reading was actually offered up with a straight face by U.S. Attorney William B. Mateja in oral arguments before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month in the case of U.S. vs. physician Timothy Joe Emerson, a Texan charged with illegally possessing a firearm because his wife had filed a routine restraining order against him during his divorce proceedings. (A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Emerson, who was "greatly surprised" to learn he may have violated any law, but the case never got to trial. In April, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings in Lubbock properly found that the law denying guns to those under a restraining order was an unconstitutional infringement of the "individual right to bear arms." The federal law, Judge Cummings wrote, "is unconstitutional because it allows a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights.") On the bright side, the three judges hearing the appeal in New Orleans could barely conceal their incredulousness when the U.S. attorney told them yes, even the shotguns at home in the judges' closets could be outlawed with a flick of the wrist, since they weren't using them in the course of their National Guard duties -- see www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html, or www.2ndlawlib.org. Now, Congress enacted the law which gave birth to the American "National Guard" as we know it in the year 1917, partially in horror at the demonstrated effectiveness of citizen militias in giving hives to the central authorities in Mexico in the recent revolution there, and during that same decade of hideous "progressivism" which brought us the personal income tax, the Federal Reserve Board, alcohol Prohibition, and the beginnings of our delightful and long-running Drug War via the Harrison Narcotics Act. That the Founding Fathers gathered together in 1789, peered into their crystal ball, and wrote a Second Amendment which meant the word "militia" to be read in light of a statist ordinance which wouldn't even be written until the First World War would require a bit of a leap of faith, even if we didn't have Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who drafted the Second Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, on the record advising us (in 1788): "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. ... All regulations tending to render this militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia or distinct bodies of military men not having permanent interests and attachments in the community (are) to be avoided. ... To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." I, and others deluded into believing we were engaged in a rational discussion, where facts and evidence might count for something, have offered up reams of documented statements from the Founding Fathers that "no free man is to be debarred the use of arms" (Thomas Jefferson's proposed draft for the Virginia constitution) and that "The main thing is that every man be armed -- everyone who is able must have a gun" (Patrick Henry, 1788), etc. But the other side just keeps croaking out their memorized little chant about "ignoring the first clause." # # # So imagine the interest with which I received last week from Yale University Press a copy of the weighty and definitive new 400-page tome of history and analysis, "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction," by that leading constitutional scholar, current Southmayd Professor of Law at Yale University, Akhil Reed Amar. For those who have been in a cave for some little time, let me point out that the law school at Yale is not what we would call a nest of right-wing militia activism. In fact, I don't think it would be unfair to characterize professor Amar's politics as leaning somewhat to the left. Yet how does professor Amar deal with the "You forgot the first clause, nyah nyah nyah" argument? Beginning on page 51, he explains: "Several modern scholars have read the (second) amendment as protecting only arms bearing in organized 'state militias,' like SWAT teams and National Guard units. ... "This reading doesn't quite work. The states'-rights reading puts great weight on the word militia, but the word appears only in the amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the states. As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so. "Thus, as noted above, 'the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same people at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment. Elbridge Gerry put the point nicely in the First Congress, in language that closely tracked the populist concern about governmental self-dealing at the root of earlier amendments: 'This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government.' "What's more, the 'militia,' as used in the amendment and in clause 16, had a very different meaning two hundred years ago than in ordinary conversation today. Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as the 'state militia,' but two hundred years ago, any band of paid, semiprofessional, part-time volunteers, like today's Guard, would have been called "a select corps" or "select militia" -- and viewed in many quarters as little better than a standing army. "In 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection -- the "militia" is identical to "the people" in the core sense described above. Indeed, the version of the amendment that initially passed the House, only to be stylistically shortened in the Senate, explicitly defined the militia as 'composed of the body of the People.' This is clearly the sense in which 'the militia' is used in clause 16 and throughout The Federalist, in keeping with standard usage confirmed by contemporaneous dictionaries, legal and otherwise. As Tench Coxe wrote in a 1788 Pennsylvania essay, 'Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?' " Thus endeth today's reading from professor Amar. A word of advice to those who would deprive law-abiding Americans of their historical and unalienable right (not a "privilege" subject to license or permit or registration or taxation -- or do you propose to start having Americans apply for "Freedom of Religion permits" and "Freedom of Speech licenses"?) to keep at home and carry in their cars weapons of military usefulness, including belt-fed machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades and shoulder-launched, heat-seeking missiles: Get yourself some new lies; the old ones are wearing thin. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at $24.95 postpaid by dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.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: Mon, 10 Jul 00 06:35:08 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: John Leo: the feminist war on boys (in government schools, mainly) (fwd) On Jul 8, The McGehee Zone wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] WHERE BOYS SHALL NOT BE BOYS American schools geared toward finding fault By JOHN LEO In my eldest daughter's pre-kindergarten class, run by parents in Greenwich Village, the children were from all sorts of ethnic and class backgrounds, but they always sorted themselves out by sex. The girls sat quietly at tables, drawing and talking. The boys all ran around screaming like maniacs, bouncing off the walls, raising so much ear-splitting commotion that my first reaction each day was a fleeting urge to strangle them all. I do not believe that these male tots were acting out their assigned masculine gender roles in the patriarchical order. I think the obvious is true: Boys are different from girls. They like rough-and-tumble play. When they alight somewhere, they build something, then knock it down. They are not much interested in sitting quietly, talking about their feelings or working on relationships. They like action, preferably something involving noise, conflict and triumph. Teachers know that girls are better suited to schooling. So if you want to teach boys, allowances must be made. One of the tragedies of the last 20 years or so is that school systems are increasingly unwilling to make those allowances. Instead, in the wake of the feminist movement, they have absorbed anti-male attitudes almost without controversy. They are now more likely to see ordinary boy behavior as something dangerous that must be reined in. Or they may tighten the screws on boys by drafting extraordinarily broad zero-tolerance and sexual-harassment policies. Worse, they may simply decide that the most active boys are suffering from attention deficit disorder and dope them up with Ritalin. Two straws in the wind: Four kindergarten boys in New Jersey were suspended from school for playing cops and robbers at recess with "guns" (their hands, with one finger pointed out). Teasing, ridicule and making unflattering remarks are now listed as sexual harassment violations for 4-year-olds and up in public schools in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood. "It's a bad time to be a boy in America," Christina Sommers says in her important new book, "The War Against Boys." "We are turning against boys," she writes. "Boys need discipline, respect and moral guidance. They do not need to be pathologized." Sommer's book is packed with examples of the anti-male attitudes that pervade the public schools. At University High School in Pacific Heights, Calif., boys must sit quietly though a "Women's Assembly," in which women are celebrated and man are blamed. Boys in one San Francisco class are regularly put through feminists paces -- made to enjoy quilting, forced to listen as girls vent their anger at males. When Barbara Wilder-Smith, a teacher and researcher in the Boston area, made "Boys Are Good" T-shirts for her class, all 10 female teachers under her supervision strongly objected to the message. One of the 10 was wearing a button saying "So many men, so little intelligence." Some schools use the Bem Androgyny Scale -- named for feminist psychologist Sandra Bem -- to measure success in getting rid of those pesky masculine traits in boys. In his book "The Decline of Males," anthropologist Lionel Tiger says women have taken charge of the public dialogue on gender and decisively bent it to their advantage. That is certainly true of dialogue about the schools. We spent most of the 1990s fretting about bogus research claiming that the schools were shortchanging and damaging girls, when the truth is that boys are the ones in trouble. Boys are much more likely than girls to have problems with schoolwork, repeat a grade, get suspended and develop learning difficulties. In some schools, boys account for up to three-fourths of "special education" classes. They are five times more likely than girls to commit suicide and four to nine times more likely to be drugged with Ritalin. Student polls show that both girls and boys say their teachers like the girls more and punish the boys more often. Girls get better grades than boys, take more rigorous courses, and now attend college in much greater numbers. While the traditional advantage of boys over girls in math and science has narrowed (girls take as least as many upper-level math courses as boys, and more biology and chemistry), the advantage of girls over boys in reading and writing is large and stable. In writing achievement, 11th-grade boys score at the level of eighth-grade girls. The Department of Education reported this year: "There is evidence that the female advantage in school performance is real and persistent." The school failure of so many boys, magnified and fanned by anti-male hostility, is a severe social problem. Females now account for 56 percent of American college students, and the male-female gap is still widening. It is 60-40 in Canada and 63-37 among American blacks. These numbers, always overlooked in media laments about "underrepresentation," have several ominous implications. One is for much more fatherlessness. College women who can't find college-educated mates won't marry down; they will likely just have their babies alone. It's time to discuss some remedies, incuding vouchers, single-sex schools and programs targeted at specific problems of boys. Save the males. _________________________________________ John Leo's column about contemporary society is distributed by Universal Press Syndicate. Collected from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Online, http://63.147.65.1/ (click OPINION, find Saturday, July 8, 2000) [------------------------- 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, 10 Jul 00 06:34:08 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: A rogue nation that imperils American life (fwd) On Jul 7, The McGehee Zone wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Mc Gehee To: Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 11:05 PM Subject: FWD: A rogue nation that imperils American life From: "David L. Williams" To: Dave Williams Sent: July 7, 2000 5:31:21 PM GMT Subject: A rogue nation that imperils American life Invade Vanuatu! by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. They say there are no foreign threats to the US. Nonsense, cries the Washington Post. Echoing the Clinton administration and the OECD, the editorial page has found a rogue nation that imperils American life as we know it. As the headline ominously puts it: "The Threat from Vanuatu." Who cares about Vanuatu, you may ask, thereby indicating your ignorance of the fact that this is still a dangerous world. Vanuatu, known before independence in 1980 as New Hebrides, consists of 83 small islands in the southwest corner of the Pacific Ocean, northeast of Australia and slightly west of Fiji. Its total population is 200,000, mostly Christian as a result of 19th-century missionary activity, with the natives employed mainly in subsistence farming. So what's the threat? Are they building The Bomb? Harboring terrorists? Promoting hate? Trading with Iraq? Growing pot? No, the threat comes from Vanuatu's laws on taxes (you don't have to pay any) and banking (the right of contract between customer and banker is protected). Thus, Vanuatu has attracted some very large banks and provides a service that banks in the developed world are forbidden to offer: customer confidentiality and security in private property. So where's the harm? The spin is that governments of some poor countries are losing revenue, up to $50 billion per year. But that's not the real driving force behind the attack. It's the US government that is most worried. Can you imagine a bunch of politicians with $2 trillion per year at their disposal complaining they don't have enough? Washington is awash in the loot we call taxes, with federal revenue soaring to unexpected heights. The reason is the economic boom. More income means more income taxes. Higher stock prices means more taxes from capital gains. More spending means more excise tax payments. But somehow it's never enough. Bureaucrats in DC can't sleep at night for imagining the trickles of cash that are escaping their clutches and being banked in independent Vanuatu. Incredibly, the cartel of governments called the OECD is threatening trade sanctions against this poor country unless it changes its tax and banking laws. And not only Vanuatu: a total of 35 countries around the world are on the OECD hit list: Andorra; Anguilla; Antigua and Barbuda; Aruba; Bahrain; Barbados; Belize; British Virgin Islands; Cook Islands; Dominica; Gibraltar; Grenada; Guernsey/Sark/Alderney; Isle of Man; Jersey; Liberia; Liechtenstein; Maldives; Marshall Islands; Monaco; Montserrat; Nauru; Netherlands Antilles; Niue; Panama; Samoa; Seychelles; St Lucia; The Federation of St. Christopher & Nevis; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Tonga; Turks & Caicos; US Virgin Islands; and, finally, Vanuatu. Bomb the Grenadines! Overrun Tonga! Liberate Liberia! Invade Grenada again, not to toss out the communists but to overthrow the capitalists! But isn't there such a thing as national sovereignty anymore? The answer is no, says the Washington Post: "Sovereignty cannot be an absolute defense of harmful behavior that spills across borders." But in this case, the "harmful behavior" is a leak in Western governments' otherwise ironclad system of looting. Obviously, the people who use the services offered by these countries benefit from them. Even those who do not use their services benefit from the competition these countries provide to the high-tax regimes of the developed world. Because tax havens exist, governments in the OECD face at least some potential penalty for raising tax rates to too high a level. If rich governments don't like the competition from these countries, there is an easy way out: lower tax rates to make evasion less profitable. The competition also helps poor nations understand that low taxes are the best means to attracting investment. Instead, the OECD wants to go the other way, and create a world cartel of tax prisons, where money can go nowhere but through state-approved channels so the power elite can take its high percentage. Meanwhile, these same governments presume to prosecute private businesses for attempting to collude in their operations. Isn't it obvious that the biggest and most dangerous cartel of all is the one that rich governments are attempting to create among themselves at the expense of their citizens? This OECD is very dangerous to poor nations as well. They have little capital on which to build prosperity. They have low rates of labor productivity to generate income and attract business. Instead, the only way they can get ahead economically is by exploiting their comparative advantages relative to developed nations. And what are those advantages? Lower regulations, cheaper labor costs, lower taxes, and better banking laws. In each case, rich nations are attempting to steal those advantages. We've seen the World Trade Organization attempting to rachet-up environmental regulations on poor countries. It was on this basis that ministers from the developing world walked away from the WTO meetings at Seattle. The International Labor Organization is trying to enact pro-labor union sanctions against low-wage countries. The World Bank is trying to pry open their banking system under the excuse of demanding "transparency." And now the OECD is trying to take away their tax and banking advantages. In neither the OECD report nor the Washington Post editorial can you find a word about the harm such "upward harmonization" of laws would cause poor countries like Vanuatu. Without its banking center, the country would immediately collapse into total poverty, all so greedy Western governments could get more tax revenue. The rich countries will respond by providing "development" aid, a bribe to local politicians to obey rich governments in all matters. These little havens of tax liberation benefit everyone who matters: the citizens who use the banking services, the citizens who don't because their governments face some degree of competition, the banks that provide the services, and the poor countries who profit from more capitalism as a means toward economic development. Who loses? Bloated governments in the OECD. In the war on Vanuatu, is there any doubt about what side is right? July 7, 2000 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He also edits a daily news site, LewRockwell.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: Tue, 11 Jul 00 13:58:43 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: URGENT JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS ALERT! (fwd) It isn't mentioned here, but we all know about the Anti-Gun Agenda and other abuses the Interstate Commerce Clause has been put to, do we not? On Jul 11, Charles F. Nawrocki wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ////SENT FYI ///// >From: "Cathie Adams" >Subject: FW: URGENT JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS ALERT! >Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:06:09 -0500 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Eagle Forum [mailto:eagle@eagleforum.org] >Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 4:02 PM >To: ALERT@eagleforum.org >Subject: URGENT JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS ALERT! > > > URGENT JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS ALERT! > 7-10-00 > >BONNIE J. CAMPBELL, one of Bill Clinton's most egregious >nominees to date is likely to come to a vote before the Senate >Judiciary Committee later this week. Campbell's nomination to the >Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears appeals from >Arkansas) should be opposed for numerous reasons, including the >following: > >* LACK OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE: Campbell's career has > been in executive positions (e.g., director of the Violence > Against Women Office); she is totally lacking in adequate > judicial experience. > >* UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION'S > COMMERCE CLAUSE: In her position as the VAW Office > director, she actively promoted the use of the civil rights > provision of the Violence Against Women Act. This provision > was rooted in the argument that Congressional power to > regulate "interstate commerce" justified the law. The U. S. > Supreme Court recently struck down the civil rights provision > as being too expansive an exercise of Congressional > commerce power. > >* "RABID PRO-ABORTION STANCE": An Iowans for Life > president described Campbell in this manner because of > Campbell's avid support for abortion and opposition to parental > notification. > >* FEMINIST TIES: Campbell was a delegate to the 1995 U.N. > Conference on Women in Beijing, China, one of the most > pro-feminist aggregations ever convened. > >* EXTREMIST OPPOSITION TO CHRISITIANITY: Campbell has > described religious conservatives as "extremists, > fundamentalist, anti-tax groups." She told Iowa public school > educators, "I hate to call them Christian because I am a > Christian, and I hate to call them religious, because they're > not, so I'll call them the radical right." Yet she "respects > everyone's religious views profoundly" but thinks that such > views "have no place in our school system or political > structure." > >Our Washington supporters report that opposition to Campbell is >building, and that Senators may be persuaded to oppose her if there >is sufficient constituent support for such opposition. WE CAN MAKE >A DIFFERENCE IF WE: > > 1. Urge any of the following Republican members of the > Senate Judiciary Committee to put a hold on the > nomination in the Committee: Grassley (IA--especially > important because his state is in the Eighth Circuit), > Thurmond (SC), Kyl (AZ), Ashcroft (MO--his state is also in > the Eighth Circuit), Abraham (MI), Sessions (AL), Bob > Smith (NH); > > 2. Urge all Judiciary Committee Republicans to vote > against Campbell if the nomination goes to a vote; the > remaining Committee Republicans are: Hatch (UT--the > Committee Chairman), Specter (PA) and DeWine (OH). > > MAKE YOUR PHONE CALL NOW! > > Senate Operator: 202-224-3121 > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Read this ALERT online: >http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/00-07-10/Campbell-Nominations.html >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Eagle Forum http://www.eagleforum.org >PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org >Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 >Fax: 618-462-8909 >------------------------------------------------------ >To subscribe to Eagle Email >please email: eagle@eagleforum.org >with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line. >To unsubscribe, please send a message with >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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 00 14:32:14 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Make Rosie O'Donnell an NRA Member! (fwd) On Jul 11, saba22@webtv.net wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story...=20 Posted Monday, July 10, 2000; 10:40 p.m. EDT NRA Razzes Rosie the Anti-Gun Hypocrite Remember when loudmouth talk show host Rosie O'Donnell revealed her anti-gun hypocrisy by having her bodyguard apply for a gun in fancy-schmancy Greenwich, Conn.? NewsMax.com helped break the story back in May (See original Inside Cover), but we thought it would be fun to see how the National Rifle Association razzed Rosie. And the NRA publication America's 1st Freedom seems to have fun doing just that in the July issue. On the so-called Million Mom March: "Leading the cheering section was none other than Rosie O'Donnell, gun hater of epic proportions, proudly blue-nosed in her stated desire to review 200 years of American heritage and in the end toss out everything on the menu that didn't meet her taste." And take this: "After all, the comedienne is a raging hypocrite when it comes to guns. Her bodyguard was under orders to carry a concealed handgun - the same bodyguard that drove her child to school. Rosie was frank in her assessment that she and her family needed Second Amendment protection. At the same time the arrogant entertainer worked overtime to deny the same right to common folk who, according to Rosie, could always call a cop." Here's an idea. Why doesn't the NRA make O'Donnell an honorary member, as it did to fellow anti-gun hypocrite Carl Rowan, much to the liberal columnist's chagrin, after he pulled a gun on a trespasser in the late 1980s? Such an honor is certain to send rabid Rosie into the mother of all snits. [------------------------- 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 #365 *************************