From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #447 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Friday, June 15 2001 Volume 02 : Number 447 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:56:22 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: Support AOL & Support China? (fwd) Well don't AOL just figure...... From: Rich Martin Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [richslick] Support AOL & Support China? Looks like we're going to get back $100 mil of the $100 bil we pay for Chinese junk each year. Now we're going to help Amerika's greatest potential enemy to wire their schools! At least we could wait until they let us fly our spy plane back to the USA in Russian cargo planes. We've got the Rockies in our head. Rich Martin From: "joe6pk" Subject: Support AOL & Support China? AOL to set up 200 million dollar joint venture in China: report BEIJING, June 4 (AFP) - America Online Inc. will unveil a 200 million dollar joint venture in China with top Chinese computer maker Legend Holdings next week, the Asian Wall Street Journal reported Monday. The deal between AOL, the world's largest Internet service provider, and Legend was confirmed by a Legend executive and marks AOL's first major foray into the mainland China market, the Journal said. The agreement involves each side contributing 100 million dollars to set up a new company that would develop interactive services for Chinese consumers, the report said. Citing AOL documents dated late last month, the Journal said the two companies will have equal say in management decisions as well as equal board representation. But Legend will own a 52 percent stake in the new venture, reflecting China's restrictions against foreign companies holding a majority ownership in the telecommunications and Internet sectors. Legend is a majority state-owned company which is listed in Hong Kong and has 30 percent of the personal computer market in China. The agreement marks the first step by the Virginia-based Internet unit of AOL Time Warner Inc. toward offering its popular dial-up service and Web portal to China's 22 million online users, the Journal said. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 11 Jun 2001 19:17:48 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: Phyllis Schlafly: Surprise Assault On Gun Ownership (fwd) From: Rich Martin Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {NewsUCanUse} Phyllis Schlafly: Surprise Assault On Gun Ownership Surprise Assault On Gun Ownership June 6, 2001 by: Phyllis Schlafly The gun-control lobby is on the warpath in a most surprising venue. A group called Doctors Against Handgun Injury is calling on doctors, including psychiatrists, to ask their patients nosy questions about their gun ownership. As far back as we can remember, doctors have vigorously opposed any interference with the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. We could always count on medical associations to defend patient privacy against any invasion by government, the media or others into personal medical records. Psychiatrists have been outspoken in the past about the importance of patient-doctor confidentially because trust in the doctor is particularly important. Their patients are usually in a very vulnerable and exploitable state of mind. Somehow, this is changing under a new onslaught by the gun-control lobby. It has lined up a coalition consisting of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and ten other medical organizations claiming a membership of 600,000 doctors. The Doctors Against Handgun Injury plan to engage in what it calls "upstream intervention." That means using regular medical checkups to ask patients about firearm ownership and storage in their homes and warn them of the risks of this behavior. But that's not all. Doctors Against Handgun Injury is also calling for changes in public policy, such as mandatory background checks on buyers at gun shows, limits on the number of guns an individual can buy, and a waiting period for all gun purchasers. Will patients no longer see their physician as a trusted professional in whom they can confide their most private facts about mind and health? Will the physician instead be perceived as an arm of the government prying into their private lives, or as a spokesman of a special-interest advocacy group pursuing a political agenda? Doctors should be especially leery of this project because of the 20th century experience of medicine under Soviet Communism and Nazism. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial showed how the German medical profession became a collaborator with the Nazi regime by collecting data on their patients that were then used against them. Unfortunately, some gun-control lawmakers are trying to lock doctors into the ban-the-gun agenda. A bill now under consideration in the California State Legislature would require pediatricians to subject children and their parents to all sorts of nosy questions about "family, environmental, and social risk factors," including whether there are guns in the home and whether their parents spank them. You would think that the American Medical Association (AMA) would be shouting from the housetops against this government and outside interference with private medical practice, but it looks like the AMA has joined the ban-the-guns movement. The AMA uses its publications, including its Journal (JAMA), to publish biased research with preordained conclusions, such as "easy gun availability results in crime." The AMA has plenty of money to pursue its political agenda, which is increasingly left-liberal, and it doesn't have to depend on the support of member doctors. Two-thirds of the AMA's annual $200 million operating budget comes from sources other than membership, which has now dwindled to only a third of U.S. physicians. A principal source of AMA wealth is a contract (kept secret from 1983 to 1998) with the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) by which HCFA requires all doctors to buy the AMA codes and use them to bill the government and third-party insurance carriers for all medical services. Failure to use the AMA codes accurately may result in government accusations of fraud and abuse, and prosecution and imprisonment. The taxpayer-financed Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is also climbing aboard the ban-the-guns movement. It is trying to broaden the scope of public health to include the banning and confiscation of all handguns, the restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and the eventual elimination of all guns from private ownership except for a small elite of wealthy collectors, hunters and target shooters. CDC spokesmen propagate the myth that most of the perpetrators of violence are ordinary citizens rather than criminals by trade. The fact is that the typical murderer has a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests before he commits murder, and 75 percent of all violent crimes are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders. We don't have to look very far to observe the tragic loss of liberty in countries that have gone down the road of banning private gun ownership or using doctors to collect confidential data on their patients to serve a political agenda. Fortunately, Attorney General John Ashcroft has just reaffirmed the constitutional principle that the Second Amendment "protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes." Phyllis Schlafly column 6-06-01 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Read this column online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/june01/01-06-06.shtml ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eagle Forum * PO Box 618 * Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 * Fax: 618-462-8909 http://www.eagleforum.org * eagle@eagleforum.org - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EAGLE FORUM PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 12 Jun 2001 06:10:00 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: Where Have All the Commies Gone? They're Still Here (fwd) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:15:50 -0700 Subject: Fw: Where Have All the Commies Gone? They're Still Here From: David Lindstedt - --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wjpbr@aol.com To: undisclosed-recipients:; Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:15:43 EDT Subject: Where Have All the Commies Gone? They're Still Here WJPBR Email News List WJPBR@AOL.COM Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! Where Have All the Commies Gone? They're Still Here Wes Vernon Saturday, June 9, 2001 WASHINGTON Militant Marxists are as active in the U.S. as ever, and are perhaps more influential than ever in our society. The old Soviet Union is gone, but communists in this country did not go away, writes Ronald Radosh in his new book, "Commies." Nor did their allies amongst the socialists and the militants of the "New Left," which was spawned in the sixties. Radosh writes that as a former Communist of the "Old Left" and active militant of the "New Left," he now sees the current "Leftover Left" going strong. The author was a "Red diaper baby," born to Communist parents and following in their footsteps as he grew older. Radosh says, "In its many shifting forms radical feminism, ultra- environmentalism, pro-Arabism, political correctness, the new anarchism this leftover Left has developed new issues and causes, all fought with the same earnestness, arrogance, and thoughtlessness that we brought to the fight for communism and socialism from the 1940's through the 1980's." As yesterday's causes collapsed, Radosh relates, his old friends in "the movement" couldn't admit to themselves they were wrong. Instead, they repeat platitudes about "real" socialism never having been tried because the Soviet Union was the "wrong country." Make no mistake, says this professor who has seen the left from the inside for decades, "Today's Left has no Soviet Union as a beacon, but reflexive hatred of the American system is intact." That could be a warning for parents contemplating sending their children off to college. On many campuses, manifestations of Marxism dominate the political atmosphere. Unlike David Horowitz, whose change of heart was fairly sudden, or Whittaker Chambers, who escaped a Communist spy nest even more abruptly, Radosh's metamorphosis was evolutionary. Over several decades, he appeared to go from hard-left communist to deep-seated socialist to New Left radical to softer radical to soft socialist, to liberal to moderate to neo-conservative. The Rosenberg Spies The main catalyst for his change in worldview was his research on the case of atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. He started out thinking he would prove once and for all that the Rosenbergs had been framed. He concluded they had not, and that Julius at least was thoroughly guilty, as charged. When he put his findings in his book "The Rosenberg File," the left lowered the boom and tried to block it as much as possible from reaching the public. Just one negative letter from American historian Richard Drinnon, then teaching at Bucknell University, led the publisher, Vintage Books, to decide to cancel publication. No one on the left protested this form of "blacklisting." Lawyers pointed out that the firm was legally obligated and under contract to publish it. However, the firm was not legally obligated to provide a book tour or publicity campaign, so the book was largely blacked out anyway. Later, when post-Cold War Soviet files were opened, all doubts about the Rosenbergs' guilt was laid to rest. Radosh quotes Thomas Powers, writing in the New York Review of Books, who said, "Soviet spies were of the left generally, they supported liberal causes, they defended the Soviet Union in all circumstances, they were often secret members of the Communist Party." Michael Harrington, the well-known socialist, made a strong effort in the 1970s to bring remnants of the Old Left into a broad socialist movement, including an overture to Dorothy Healey, a leading ex-Communist from Southern California. When she came to New York in 1973, Radosh and his wife put her up in their apartment. They talked long into the night. When Radosh said, "Well, at least the Red-baiters were wrong about the [U.S. Communist Party] getting Moscow gold," Healey's response was, "No, you're wrong. How do you think the CP bought its building [at sky-high Manhattan real estate rates] on West 23rd Street?" On one of her last trips to Moscow for the party, she explained, Healey was "given a suitcase filled with thousands of dollars to smuggle into America, to be used by the CPUSA as they saw fit." Years later when Radosh quoted her in the conservative magazine American Spectator, Healey threatened to sue. Radosh reminded her that his wife was a witness to the conversation and that if she did sue, he would spill the beans on "other things she indiscreetly told me." Harrington tried to meld his far-left coalition into the left wing of the Democratic Party. At the 1980 Democratic National Convention in New York's Madison Square Garden, his Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee set up shop there in its own name and awarded floor passes for its members. Ted Kennedy, the Great White Hope Radosh sat there and watched on TV a convention speech by Ted Kennedy, "whom we regarded as the Democratic party's best hope." Later, Harrington presided over a talk by union leader William (Wimpy) Winpinsinger, who had "declared himself to be a socialist as he became a vice chair of the DSOC." Other speakers included Rep. Ron Dellums, D-Calif., and John Conyers, D-Mich. The latter is now the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and would become chairman of that panel if the Democrats win back control of the House. Earlier events by the "Democratic socialists," as they called themselves, included a 1976 rally featuring speakers such as Rep. Bella Abzug, D-N.Y., and activist Marion Barry, "the future notorious mayor of Washington, D.C." A later factor in what Radosh calls his "long journey home" focused on the 1980s struggle between the Communist and pro-Castro Sandinista government in Nicaragua and the anti-Communist Contras. The author started out cheering on the Sandinistas, then began urging them to reform (when their brutal police-state tactics became too obvious for him to ignore), then morphed into a plague-on-both-your-houses stance, and ultimately ended up supporting the Contras. Second only to the Rosenberg case, this appears to be the benchmark in Radosh's shift in his worldview. It was then that he began to ask that if the liberal-left activists in the U.S. were so wrong on this issue ("They looked the other way," he writes), then on what other matters were they deceiving themselves. The Clintonistas One unpleasant incident encountered by the author involved Sidney Blumenthal, then a Washington Post reporter and later a hatchet man for the Clinton White House, who used distortion and "slander" to smear Radosh during his trip to Nicaragua. More tidbits from Radosh: Radosh got himself into trouble during the transition period of the incoming Clinton administration in late 1992. He blew the whistle on the publicized (but never officially announced) appointment of Jonetta Cole as secretary of education, "whom I knew to have been an unabashed fellow traveler." After reading the book "The New Socialist Revolution" by Michael Lerner, Radosh began to help organize a West Side (N.Y) chapter of Lerner's New American Movement in 1973. Lerner was later to achieve his 15 minutes of fame as the guru of Hillary Clinton's "politics of meaning." Joan Baez was a heroine of the radial left until she turned on the Communist Hanoi regime for its atrocities. Then her old friends labeled her "an enemy of the people." Bob Dylan, Ed Asner, Mary Travers (Peter, Paul and Mary), Jane Fonda and Bianca Jagger are among the celebrities appearing throughout the book and in one way or another embracing the hard left and promoting its causes. So too are the more notorious Pete Seeger and Paul Robeson. The famous author Irving Howe, a prominent supporter of the African National Congress in South Africa, argued to Radosh that black liberation there had to be "our cause," even if this led "to Communist control." David Gelber, editor of the radical David Dellinger's magazine, Liberation, and staff director for the famed May Day protest demonstration in Washington, would later become news director and producer in major mainstream broadcast outlets. And Fidel Castro's paradise? When Radosh and several of his then fellow leftists visited a Cuban hospital and saw dazed, drugged-out expressions on the faces of the patients, one of them screamed: "This stinks. Lobotomy is a horror!" To which another of the group, Castro loyalist Suzanne Ross, replied, "We have to understand that there are differences between capitalist lobotomies and socialist lobotomies." The examples are endless. Suffice it to say that the left of today is carrying on the work of the left of previous decades. Yes, even without the Soviet Union. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at WJPBR@AOL.COM for a menu of our lists! - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:24:57 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: PRIVACY ALERT: Last chance to block raid on your medical records - ----- Forwarded message from Privacy News Update ----- From: "Privacy News Update" Subject: PRIVACY ALERT: Last chance to block raid on your medical records Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:21:23 -0400 =================== PRIVACY NEWS UPDATE Last chance to block the government's raid on your medical records -- including your DNA! =================== You are receiving this update because you registered at http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com, the site that was instrumental in killing the FDIC's Know Your Customer regulation in 1999. We are writing to notify you that this is your *LAST CHANCE* to stop the new HHS "medical privacy rule," which would allow the government to seize control over your private medical records and transfer them to other parties. However, if you do not want to receive further updates, please use the unsubscribe directions at the end of this message. ================================================== Only three days left to kill Federal anti-privacy regulation Dear Privacy Advocate: We have an urgent request: Please pick up the phone and call Congress today, or the fight for medical privacy could be lost. That is because the Health and Human Services regulation that turns your medical data over to the government will go into effect permanently -- unless Congress passes HJR 38 by Friday, June 15. Please read this short memo, immediately take the action at the bottom, then forward it to others who might be interested. BACKGROUND: On April 14, President Bush quietly directed Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to impose the so-called "medical privacy regulations" that were originally developed by the Clinton administration. Bush's maneuver came despite the fact that the HHS had been inundated with nearly 100,000 angry letters and e-mails from Americans around the country. The most dangerous aspect of this regulation -- and the one most overlooked in news reports -- is that for the first time the government, rather than patients and doctors, would be in complete control of your private medical records. That's because the regulation forces doctors and hospitals to share all electronic medical records with the government for a variety of vague purposes, such as to "streamline medical billing procedures" or for "public health surveillance." Then the government, rather than individual patients, will decide who gets to see them. No wonder Americans are so worried. This regulation, which was published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2000, would: * Give dozens of government agencies and thousands of bureaucrats access to your medical records -- including the private notes of a psychotherapist -- without your consent. * Let government agencies share your records with marketing companies. The rules specifically allow pharmacies to share prescription records "for the purpose of marketing health-related products and services" without your consent. * Do nothing to prevent the government from accessing your DNA information and transferring it to "third parties." * Permit police agencies to access medical records without a search warrant. * Allow private insurance companies to compile the medical information into a database. * Prevent patients involved in health research projects from accessing their own medical records in some cases. How would you like a prospective employer to know if you have a "genetic predisposition" to contract a serious - -- and expensive -- illness? What if an acquaintance who worked for an insurance company or government agency could read the private notes of your psychotherapist, or find out if you have ever undergone drug or alcohol treatment? Would you want others to know whether you've had an abortion or been treated for an embarrassing disease? All of those things could happen if this Clinton-Bush regulation is allowed to stand. That's why it's so important to pick up the phone and call your U.S. representative today. If we can't get Congress to vote on HJR 38 by Friday, you can kiss your medical privacy goodbye! WHAT TO DO: Call your U.S. House representative immediately at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 to request an immediate vote on House Joint Resolution 38 (HJR 38). This measure, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, declares that the HHS regulation "shall have no force or effect." WHAT TO SAY: (1) Identify yourself and let them know you are a voter in their district. Leave your name, address, complete with ZIP code, and phone number. Please be brief, especially if you are leaving a message. (2) Ask them to tell House Speaker Dennis Hastert to schedule an immediate vote on HJR 38. Let them know that this measure must pass Congress by Friday -- or the HHS rules will remain in effect. (3) Ask them to vote *YES* on HJR 38. Then ask for a letter confirming their position. Is there anything else you can do? Yes! Please forward this E-mail to a friend, and ask them to call their representative as well. Thank you for your help! Sincerely, Steve Dasbach National Director Libertarian Party =============================================================== TO UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:privacy-news-request@columbia.lp.org?body=unsubscribe Or, if the above method doesn't work with your software, please send an e-mail FROM THE ACCOUNT SUBSCRIBED to the mailing list to: privacy-news-request@columbia.lp.org and in the body of the message type only the word "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION that requires an answer, YOU MUST mailto:info@defendyourprivacy.com Replies to the List Manager or to the list itself will be deleted by our mailing list management software. =============================================================== - ----- End forwarded message ----- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:55:23 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: VIN -- SCOTUS school Christian club (fwd) From: Rich Martin Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: {NewsUCanUse} VIN -- SCOTUS school Christian club FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz High court OKs after-hours religious club The Rev. Barry Lynn, leader of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, expressed outrage at the Supreme Court's ruling Monday that a Christian youth group must be permitted to hold after-school Bible study classes in a public elementary school. The court ruled, 6-3, that since officials of New York's Milford Central Elementary School allow non-religious civil and social groups to use their buildings after hours, they cannot now close their doors to the singing and praying which the Rev. Stephen Fournier and his wife Darleen proposed to bring to the school's cafeteria in the 3 p.m. meetings of their proposed Christian "Good News Club." Last year, the court ruled a tax-funded Texas high school could not authorize student-led prayers before its football games, lest such sponsorship be read as an endorsement of religion with government funds. But the court drew a distinction Monday between that and the after-hours use of school buildings by private clubs. Students are free to attend or stay away from such after-hours functions, the court ruled; to allow other groups to use the facility while barring religious groups would infringe those religious groups' freedom of speech, discriminating against them purely on religious grounds. The decision is "a terrible mistake," protests the Rev. Lynn. "The court's ruling means aggressive, fundamentalist evangelists have a new way to proselytize kids. I can't imagine most parents will be happy about that." In fact, the court has done just the right thing. Although the name of the Rev. Lynn's group refers to a "separation of church and state," that phrase appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights. What the First Amendment bars the central government from doing is "establishing" any religion. What was the context in which the founding fathers issued that prohibition? They had experienced first-hand a British colonial regime in which the head of the church and the head of the state were one and the same -- King George being referred to even on the coin of the realm not merely as king, but also as "defender of the faith." No, England's religious monopoly was not as harshly enforced as that of Renaissance Spain, in which Jews had to either convert or flee the country, while heretics faced the stake. Nonetheless, William Penn fled to these shores after he was jailed for preaching an illegal Quaker sermon in the streets of London. (The courageous jury refused to convict even when ordered to do so -- in fact, the case established a juror's right and duty to vote his conscience even when in direct opposition to the orders of the court.) And every colonial civil servant understood there were limits to how high he could rise unless he first bowed before the altar of the state-sponsored Church of England. America's founders favored religious pluralism and sectarian tolerance, but gave no indication they wanted the country's youth cut off from religious teachings. (Whether or not to allow religious teachings in the government schools was a question which never arose, of course, since there were no Prussian-style government-funded schools on these shores before the 1850s.) The court is thus well in line with the founders' thinking when it rules there is no state mandate to shield schoolchildren from the possibility of hearing a religious message on their own time, so long as it does not intervene to favor or promote the teachings of one church or religion over any other. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas rejected as bizarre the notion that "reliance on Christian principles taints moral and character instruction," a holding in which he was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy -- with Justice Breyer in concurrence. So long as schools are not permitted to exclude one religious group in favor of another (OK, OK, we are prejudiced against the Thugs and the followers of Kali), the court is on solid ground. In fact, the larger question now becomes: Who on earth are these characters who hold that exposing schoolchildren to religious teachings could "taint" the schools' attempts at "moral and character instruction"; where do the schools imagine they received a mandate to involve themselves in any form of "moral and character instruction" in the first place; and precisely what highly dubious alternative scheme for "moral and character instruction" do they now have in mind? Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $72 to Privacy Alert, 1475 Terminal Way, Suite E for Easy, Reno, NV 89502 -- or dialing 775-348-8591. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224, or via web site www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) "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. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:56:21 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: SENATE VOTES FOR BOY SCOUTS BY ONLY 2 VOTES-6 RINOS VOTE NO! (fwd) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:19:07 +0000 From: "Charles C. Carter" Subject: SENATE VOTES FOR BOY SCOUTS BY ONLY 2 VOTES-6 RINOS VOTE NO! IT IS TIME TO GET RID OF THE 6 REPUBLICAN "RINO" (REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY) SENATORS THAT VOTED AGAINST OUR BOY SCOUTS, ALONG WITH ALL THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED AGAINST THEM. THE SENATE SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE SCOUTS 100%, NOT JUST BY ONLY 2 VOTES WHAT HAS OUR SENATE COME TO? SAD! HERE ARE THE 6 "RINO" THAT ARE AGAINST OUR SCOUTS: SEN. CHAFEE, S.C. SEN. DEWINE, OK SEN. SPECTER, R.I SEN SNOWE, MD SEN VOINOVICK, OK SEN. HAGEE, NEV. > ROLL CALL VOTES BY EACH SENATOR ARE BELOW. KEEP FOR YOUR RECORDS > DURING ALL 2002 & 2004 SENATE ELECTIONS. CHAR > Write down the liberal votes on this issue and then vote them out. > Lets dump Boxer and Feinstein in California.John > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Phil Sheldon > To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@concentric.net;;; > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:01 PMSubject: The vote to stand for no > intimidation by militant homosexuals to punish boy scouts for not > violating their oath. "Yes" vote was NO to intimidation. Specter votes > "No" > > AP Washington > > Roll Call on Education Amendment > > By The Associated Press > > The 51-49 roll call Thursday by which the Senate voted to withhold > federal funds from school districts that deny use of their facilities > to the Boy Scouts because of the organization's exclusion of > homosexuals. > > A ''yes'' vote was a vote to withhold the fundsand a ''no'' vote was a > vote to not withhold the funds. > > Voting ''yes'' were 8 Democrats and 43 Republicans. > > Voting ''no'' were 42 Democrats and 6 Republicans and one independent. > > Alabama: > > Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes. Alaska: > > Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes. Arizona: > > Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes. Arkansas: > > Hutchinson (R) Yes; Lincoln (D) No. California: > > Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) No. Colorado: > > Allard (R) Yes; Campbell (R) Yes. Connecticut: > > Dodd (D) No; Lieberman (D) No. Delaware: > > Biden (D) No; Carper (D) No. Florida: > > Graham (D) No; Nelson (D) No. Georgia: > > Cleland (D) No; Miller (D) Yes. Hawaii: > > Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) No. Idaho: > > Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) Yes. Illinois: > > Durbin (D) No; Fitzgerald (R) Yes. Indiana: > > Bayh (D) No; Lugar (R) Yes. Iowa: > > Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) No. Kansas: > > Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes. Kentucky: > > Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes. Louisiana: > > Breaux (D) Yes; Landrieu (D) No.Maine: > > Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) No. Maryland: > > Mikulski (D) No; Sarbanes (D) No. Massachusetts: > > Kennedy (D) No; Kerry (D) No. Michigan: > > Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) No. Minnesota: > > Dayton (D) No; Wellstone (D) No. Mississippi: > > Cochran (R) Yes; Lott (R) Yes. Missouri: > > Bond (R) Yes; Carnahan (D) Yes. Montana: > > Baucus (D) No; Burns (R) Yes.Nebraska: > > Hagel (R) No; Nelson (D) No. Nevada: > > Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) No.New Hampshire: > > Gregg (R) Yes; Smith (R) Yes. New Jersey: > > Corzine (D) No; Torricelli (D) No. New Mexico: > > Bingaman (D) No; Domenici (R) Yes.New York: > > Clinton (D) No; Schumer (D) No. North Carolina: > > Edwards (D) No; Helms (R) Yes. North Dakota: > > Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes. Ohio: > > DeWine (R) No; Voinovich (R) No. Oklahoma: > > Inhofe (R) Yes; Nickles (R) Yes. Oregon: > > Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) No.Pennsylvania: > > Santorum (R) Yes; Specter (R) No. Rhode Island: > > Chafee (R) No; Reed (D) No. South Carolina: > > Hollings (D) Yes; Thurmond (R) Yes. South Dakota: > > Daschle (D) No; Johnson (D) Yes. Tennessee: > > Frist (R) Yes; Thompson (R) Yes. Texas: > > Gramm (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes. Utah: > > Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes. Vermont: > > Jeffords (I) No; Leahy (D) No. Virginia: > > Allen (R) Yes; Warner (R) Yes. Washington: > > Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) No. West Virginia: > > Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) No. Wisconsin: > > Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) No. Wyoming: > > Enzi (R) Yes; Thomas (R) Yes. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:57:22 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: THIS from a Kali Politico!?!? (fwd) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 04:49:49 +0000 From: CJE Subject: THIS from a Kali Politico!?!? No link, off subguns. Uplifting, articulate stuff, but waaaay too late: Freedom and Firearms A Speech to the 2nd Annual Western Conservative Conference in Los Angeles by Tom McClintock, June 9, 2001 There are two modern views of government that begin from entirely different premises. There is the 18th Century American view propounded by our nation's founders. They believed, and formed a government based upon that belief, that each of us is endowed by our creator with certain rights that cannot be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect those rights. This view is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the American Bill of Rights. The second view is 19th Century German in origin and expressed in the philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. It is a restatement of philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for millennia. In this view, rights come not from God, but from the state. What rights you have are there because government has given them to you, all for the greater good-defined, of course, by government. In the 20 years I have been actively engaged in public policy, I have seen the growing influence of this 19th Century German view. It disdains the view of the American Founders. It rejects the notion of inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the "laws of nature and of nature's God." In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights are vested. I mention this, because of a debate that occurred last week on the floor of the State Senate. It was a debate that occurred under the portrait of George Washington and the gold-emblazoned motto, "Senatoris Est Civitatis Libertatum Tueri"-"The Senators protect the Liberty of the Citizens." At issue was a measure, SB 52, which will require a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a license, you would have to meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by the state. We have seen many bills considered and adopted that would infringe upon the right of a free people to bear arms. But this was the most brazen attempt in this legislature to claim that the very right of self-defense is not an inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right that is licensed from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to your betters, who will license you to exercise that right at their discretion. During the debate on this measure, which passed the Senate 25 to 15, I raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the response of Senator Sheila Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is to protect the liberty of the citizens. She said, "There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want." I want to focus on that statement. "The only constitutional right which is absolute is your right to believe anything you want." Now, compare that to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." What rights have a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn't utter it or act on it-he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship-except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master-whether that master is a state or an owner. Now, let us continue to look at this new constitutional principle propounded by Senator Kuehl, under the portrait of George Washington to the delight of her colleagues whose duty, according to the proud words above them, is to "Protect the Liberty of the Citizens." She continued, "Other than that, (the right to your own thoughts) government has the ability to say on behalf of all the people-I will put it in the colloquial way as my grandmother used to-your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It's a balance of your rights and my rights because we all have constitutional rights. And the question for government is how do we balance those rights?" Indeed, the right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. An excellent analogy. Shall we therefore amputate your fist so that you can never strike my nose? And would you deny me the use of my own fist to protect my nose? Senator Kuehl and her colleagues believe government has the legitimate authority to do so. It is simply the question of balancing. It is very important that we understand precisely what Senator Kuehl and the Left are saying. A thief balances your right to your wallet against his right to eat. A murderer balances your right to life against his right to freedom. A master balances your right to "work and toil and make bread," against his right to eat it. These are matters of balance. The American view is quite different. In the view of the American Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow each of us with rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a balancing act. These rights are absolute. They cannot be alienated. But in a state of nature, there are predators who would deny us those rights. And thus we come together to preserve our freedom. In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or by one government over its people, is "to secure these rights." Senator Kuehl continues, "My right to defend myself in the home does not extend to my owning a tank, though that would make sense to me, perhaps, that no one would attack my home if I had a tank sitting in the living room." Let us put aside, for a moment, the obvious fact that a tank is only an instrument of self-defense against a power that employs a tank. But let us turn to the more reasonable side of her argument: that rights can be constrained by government; that there is, after all, "no right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. How can a right be absolute and yet constrained by government? To Senator Kuehl and the Left, the answer is simply, "it's easy-whenever we say so." Or, in her words, "government has the ability to say (so) on behalf of all the people." The American Founders had a different view, also, not surprisingly, diametrically opposed to Senator Kuehl's way of thinking. The right is absolute. In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim. Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them. Senator Kuehl continues, "In my opinion, this bill is one of those balances. It does not say you cannot have a gun. It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling and using a dangerous item you need to know how to use it, and you need to prove that you know how to use it by becoming licensed." How reasonable. How reassuring. How despotic. We must understand what they are arguing, because it is chilling. They are arguing that any of our most precious rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights-any at least they decide are conceivably dangerous-may only be extended through the license of the government. If that is the case, they are not rights. With that one despotic principle, you have just dissolved the foundation of the entire Bill of Rights. You have created a society where your only right is to your own thoughts. Inalienable rights are now alienated to government, and government may extend or refuse them upon its whim-or more precisely, upon a balancing act to be decided by government. Let us follow-in our minds at least-a little farther down this path. Hate groups publish newsletters to disseminate their hatred and racism. Sick individuals in our society act upon this hatred. The Oklahoma City bombing killed scores of innocent children. Shouldn't we license printing presses and Internet sites to prevent the pathology of hate from spreading? Such an act doesn't say you cannot have a press. It does not say you cannot express yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling a printing press, you should know what not to say and prove that you can restrain yourself by becoming licensed. And what are we to do about rogue religions like those that produced Heaven's Gate and Jonestown. How many people around the world are killed by acts of religious fanaticism every year? Should we not license the legitimate churches? Such an act doesn't say you cannot have a church. It does not say you cannot worship. It says if you are going to be running and conducting a church, that you must know how to worship and prove that you know how by becoming licensed. The only right you have is the right to believe anything you want. The only right of a slave. The rest is negotiable-or to use the new word, "balanceable." In 1838, a 29 year old Abraham Lincoln posed the question for which he would ultimately give his life. Years later, he would debate Stephen Douglas, who argued that freedom and slavery were a matter of political balance. But in this speech, he spoke to the larger question that we must now confront: "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!-All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." The American Founders worried about the same thing. Late in life, Jefferson wrote to Adams, "Yes we did create a near perfect union; but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance is the surest path to destruction." And as I listened to Senator Kuehl proclaim that "the only constitutional right in the United States which is absolute... is your right to believe anything you want," and as I gazed at the portrait of George Washington, and as I thought about the solemn words, "the Senators Protect the Liberty of the Citizens," I couldn't help but think of an aide to George Washington by the name of James McHenry, who accompanied the General as they departed Independence Hall the day the Constitution was born. He recorded this encounter between Benjamin Franklin and a Mrs. Powell. She asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Answered Dr. Franklin, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." For this generation, that is no longer a hypothetical question. History warns us that to one generation in five falls the duty-the highest duty and the most difficult duty of this Republic-to preserve the liberty of the citizens. It is the most difficult, because as Lincoln warned, it is a threat that springs up not on a foreign shore where we can see it-it springs up amongst us. It cannot be defeated by force of arms. It must be defeated by reason. Have you noticed yet, that ours is that generation? And how ironic it would be that the freedoms won with the blood of Washington's troops, and defended by so many who followed, should be voluntarily thrown away piece by piece by a generation that had become so dull and careless and pampered and uncaring that it lost the memory of freedom. The Athenian Democracy had a word for "citizen" that survives in our language today. "Politikos." Politician. The Athenians believed that a free people who declare themselves citizens assume a duty to declare themselves politicians at the same time. It is time we took that responsibility very seriously. In 1780, the tide had turned in the American Revolution, and the Founders began to sense the freedom that was within sight. John Adams wrote these words to his wife that spring. He said, "The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain." Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom. And the wheel has come full circle. Our generation must study politics that we may restore the liberty that our parents and grandparents expect us to pass on to our children and grandchildren. If we fail, what history will demand of our children and grandchildren, in a society where their only right is to their own thoughts, is simply unthinkable. And be assured, history will find it unforgivable. A generation that is handed the most precious gift in all the universe-freedom-and throws it away-deserves to be reviled by every generation that follows-and will be, even though the only right left to them is their own thoughts. But if we succeed in this struggle, we will know the greatest joy of all-the joy of watching our grandchildren secure with the blessings of liberty, studying arts and literature in a free nation and under God's grace, once again. Ladies and Gentlemen, isn't that worth devoting the rest of our lives to achieve? (c) 2001 Tom McClintock for State Senate 1121 11th Street, Suite 216, Sacramento, California 95814 916-448-9321, Fax 916-456-3279, E-Mail: tom@tommcclintock.com - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #447 *************************