From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Clinton :"we should not politicize the it" (IRS) Date: 01 Oct 1997 09:52:12 -0400 (EDT) Interestingly enough, the very liberal Boston Globe had an editorial on 9-30-97, by Jeff Jacoby detailing some IRS abuses and the Congressional attempts to "professionalize" the IRS, dating back to the 1920's. He took some shots at Dolan's weak apology, and noted that the only way to curtail IRS abuse is to simplify the tax code to the point that there is no question as to what is owed by whom and the average taxpayer can stand up for him or herself. When both ends of the political spectrum are on the same side, you're talking about a powerful issue. I think that this issue has legs, too bad it didn't come up in 1999, right on top of the Presidential election campaign. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com Subject: Here's why we're writing Big 5 Date: 01 Oct 1997 12:29:19 -0500 (CDT) Here's an editorial which appeared in the Los Angeles Times yesterday: > >[Los Angeles Times] [COMMENTARY] > > Tuesday, September 30, 1997 > > Wilson Blasts a Hole in Logic > His argument for veto of junk gun bill makes little sense > > When Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a bill last Friday banning the > manufacture and sale of cheap little handguns in > California, he complained that the measure would not keep > guns out of the hands of thugs but would deprive the > law-abiding of affordable protection. Criminals, the governor > said, prefer the safer and more expensive models. So, he > said, the legislation would punish the average Californian > who wanted a weapon, albeit a small, shoddy, unsafe one, for > self-defense. > This is the man who accused proponents of Senate Bill > 500, by Sen. Richard G. Polanco (D-Los Angeles), of engaging > in flawed logic--of ignoring "the obvious fact that millions > of law-abiding Californians, including a growing number of > women, have felt the need to own concealable weapons." > This is logical? The criminals have the good guns, so > honest folk should have the junk ones? And what logic is > there in having a small, concealable weapon when it's against > the law to carry a concealed firearm without a permit issued > by a law enforcement agency? Such permits are very difficult > to obtain in most counties. During 1996, only 1,177 permits > were issued for all of Los Angeles County. > And if it's good for the average person to have small > handguns, wouldn't it be even more logical to make sure that > everyone has one? How quickly what the governor calls logic > becomes absurdity. > We agree with Wilson about getting tough on thugs. > Indeed, the day before the gun bill veto he signed into law a > measure that adds from 10 years to life to the sentence of a > person who used a gun while committing the crime. That's > good. California needs to be tough on gun-toting criminals. > But we also need to use every weapon at our command to limit > their access to guns in the first place. > The Legislature should revive its commendable assault on > junk guns when it reconvenes in January. > > Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar > stories. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to > retrieve one. > > Copyright Los Angeles Times > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- After reading the above, I ask you: Can gun owners, in good conscience, do business with a gun dealer, such as Big 5, which is financially supporting the purveryor of such crap? If the answer is "no," then gun owners must either live by their consciences, or live as hypocrites. If we chose the former, then we are morally bound not to do business with Big 5. However, we are also morally bound to explain to Big 5 why we are taking our business elsewhere, and to advise it that we will again patronize Big 5 when Big 5 stops subsidizing our enemies. If that alienates Big 5, so be it. In such case, we will patronize gun dealers with proven track records of supporting the Second Amendment. If you, personally, have decided to take the high road, then please, PLEASE, write a letter to Big 5 and include the following: (1) As a Big 5 customer and gunowner, the writer is very displeased to see Big 5 spending its ad money on The Los Angeles Times [or other anti-gun newspaper] which has repeatedly gone on record as opposing the right of self-defense, and of poor people to purchase firearms to protect their families; (2) Big 5 is thereby opposing the writer's constitutional right to defend himself/herself and his/her family; (3) If Big 5 continues to support anti-self-defense newspapers, the writer will stop patronizing Big 5, and will tell all of his/her friends and family to do the same. (4) Remind Big 5 that as shooting enthusiasts, there are plenty of other retailers out there who would love to do business with gun owners. It is a good idea to mention a specific competitor of Big 5's which is known to be pro-gun; and (5) A [legitimate] return address. Write Big 5 at: Mr. Steve Miller, President United Merchandising Corp. Big 5 Sporting Goods P.O. Box 92088 Los Angeles, CA 90009 Or telephone him at: (310) 536-0611 For this campaign to be effective, we will need every Member's Council, every pro-gun organization and every activist in California and the Western U.S. to participate. Remember: be polite, do not threaten and remind him you spend $$$ on firearms. That's a language Mr. Miller will understand! It's your Constitution and your rights on the block. You decide what to do. Steve Silver Vice President The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316 (818) 734-3066 (The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) Visit the LSAS's Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Remember: Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. *** Self-defense is not a crime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Oct 1997 11:16:24 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Dallas Firm Takes Paula Jones Case and other tidbits Date: 02 Oct 1997 09:13:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Susan Carpenter-McMillan said they would "kick butt" next May while guest hosting on "Equal Time" tonight. Dallas Firm Takes Paula Jones Case By DARA TOM Associated Press Writer SAN MARINO, Calif. (AP) -- Paula Jones announced today she will fight her sex harassment lawsuit against President Clinton with lawyers from Dallas and money raised by a conservative organization in Virginia. Mrs. Jones stood with her spokeswoman, Susan Carpenter-McMillan, for the announcement and made only brief comments when asked about the possibility of losing. ``I'm excited about the future. Why should I be scared?'' Mrs. Jones said. She will be represented by the Dallas firm of Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke. Her previous lawyers, Joe Cammarata and Gilbert Davis, recently withdrew from the case after years of work. The spokeswoman said the new lawyers chose the conservative Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, Va., for fund-raising after Mrs. Jones made it clear she could not afford to pay. ``This law firm is willing to go to trial. ... That's what Paula has always wanted,'' Carpenter-McMillan said. The Rutherford Institute describes itself as a non-profit legal and educational organization that specializes ``in the defense of religious liberty and human rights.'' Mrs. Jones claims Clinton exposed himself to her while he was Arkansas governor and she worked for a state economic office. The encounter allegedly occurred in May 1991 in a Little Rock, Ark., hotel room. Clinton denies her allegations. The trial is set to begin in May. Cammarata and Davis withdrew from the case Sept. 8 after disagreement with Mrs. Jones over a settlement. They recently served notice that they hold a lien for $800,000 in hourly fees if Mrs. Jones is awarded attorneys fees in any settlement or court resolution of her suit. Carpenter-McMillan said Mrs. Jones would only settle if Clinton publicly apologized. ``It has to be clear that she did nothing wrong,'' Carpenter-McMillan said. ``He can't spin it as if he were picking his teeth with a toothpick.'' =03AP-NY-10-01-97 1454EDT Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. URGENT RELEASE October 1, 1997=20 Press Contact: Nisha Mohammed (804) 978-3888=20 RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE NOW ASSISTING=20 PAULA JONES IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON=20 =09"The Rutherford Institute is based on the truth that no person is above the law," says President John Whitehead.=20 =09Washington, D.C.=97The Rutherford Institute is participating in an of-counsel capacity in the defense of Paula Jones' claims in her sexual harassment and sex discrimination suit against President Clinton. Working with The Rutherford Institute is the law firm of Rader, Campbell, Fisher & Pyke, located in Dallas.=20 =09"Our involvement in Paula Jones' case stems from the fundamental principle that no person=97not even the President of the United States=97is above the law," said John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "This basic truth must be protected for our democratic society to remain viable."=20 =09Whitehead received his law degree from the University of Arkansas in the early 1970s and founded The Rutherford Institute in 1982 to protect the rights of the oppressed. Whitehead and the Institute have handled constitutional cases for over 20 years.=20 =09"This case is not about politics," said Whitehead. "It is about protecting the guiding philosophy of this country that all people are equal before the law."=20 =09The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization specializing in the defense of human rights. Today the AP reported on Hillary's continuing efforts to create intrusive government databases, while surrounding herself with children singing songs to Madame Clintong. Here are some excerpts of the more whacky aspects of Hillary's mini-tour(or is that a micro-tour?). - --- Jim =3D46rom First Lady Outlines Child-Care Plan By Sandra Sobieraj Associated Press Writer Wednesday, October 1, 1997; 6:15 p.m. EDT QUANTICO, Va. (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton is beginning to outline a child-care initiative that could offer liability protection for caretakers and ask private business to subsidize jobs for low-income parents. Subject: [RightNow] Whose Heritage and Whose Land? -- [Part II] (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1997 13:24:34 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:55:19 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: RightNow@MailList.Net The Phyllis Schlafly Report -- September 1997 Whose Heritage and Whose Land? I recently revisited Independence Hall, the cradle of our republic where the Declaration of Independence was signed and the United States Constitution was written. Something new has been added since the last time I saw it: a large bronze plaque with a peculiar inscription under an unidentified insignia. "Through the collective recognition of the community of nations expressed with the principles of the convention concerning protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage, Independence Hall has been designated a World Heritage Site and joins a select list of protected areas around the world whose outstanding natural and cultural resources form the common inheritance of all mankind." Whew! Where did all that mumbo-jumbo come from? Obviously not from American history or our founding documents. "Common inheritance of all mankind"? No way. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both uniquely American, written by identifiable Founding Fathers on American soil at known points in time. Independence Hall "joins a select list of protected areas around the world"? Who decided that Independence Hall should "join" anything? It is a unique American treasure. And who is protecting these "protected areas"? "Collective recognition of the community of nations"? It's obvious that all those foreign nations don't agree with our American Declaration or Constitution or the principles therein. Since it is impossible to relive history and give the "collective" or the "community of nations" any ownership in the historic events that made Independence Hall an American shrine, we can only deduce that some international entity is asserting a vested interest in the building. Who authorized that? After all, it would have been a nice accolade and not worthy of particular comment if the Independence Hall plaque merely said, "The United Nations honors the cradle of American freedom, the inspired words of the Declaration of Independence, and the genius of the United States Constitution that has nourished liberty in America for more than two centuries." But it didn't. We now find that at least 20 pieces of American property have been designated as "World Heritage Sites" and so identified with markers. These include Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks, the Grand Canyon, Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello, and, believe it or not, the Statue of Liberty. All of these markings took place without any publicity, without the American people knowing what was going on. The designation of these World Heritage Sites was authorized by the World Heritage Convention, a treaty signed by President Richard Nixon and ratified in 1973. The World Heritage Program is carried out by UNESCO, to which the United States doesn't even belong. President Ronald Reagan pulled us out of UNESCO because it was totally corrupt. The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program was created in 1970. The United States joined in 1974 when our State Department signed a memorandum of understanding (not a treaty) to put us in the Biosphere Program and pledge that the United States will adhere to the Biosphere conditions and limitations laid down by UNESCO. Paragraph 44 of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines states that "natural" Heritage Sites (as contrasted to "cultural") can be interchanged with "core reserves" of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program. These core protected areas are planned to be surrounded by highly regulated buffer zones, all for the sake of "biodiversity." At a conference in Spain in 1995 that culminated in the Seville Strategy, the Biosphere Program underwent a radical change in purpose. The first goal of the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves is to "promote biosphere reserves as a means of implementing the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity." U.S. State Department representatives agreed to this new framework of UNESCO-designated guidelines and objectives for the Man and Biosphere Program. So, even though the United States doesn't belong to UNESCO, and even though the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty, the United States is marching right ahead with UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program. Starting with Yellowstone National Park in 1979, UNESCO has designated 47 Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering 50 million acres. In order to designate sites and spheres under either of these UNESCO programs, the United States must agree to manage these lands according to international dictates and objectives. That's another way of saying that the United States has agreed to limit our sovereign power to manage our own lands any way we want in pursuit of our own national interests. The Clinton Administration's designation of Yellowstone Park as a World Heritage Site "in danger" has already been used to shut down a gold mine near (not even in) Yellowstone. The UN/UNESCO types have made no secret of their goals. Their next step is their Wildlands Project, a plan to designate one half of the United States as "protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity." Americans don't need or want any UN/UNESCO bureaucrats telling us how to "protect" our own land. We can jolly well handle our own protection. "Global Governance: The Quiet War Against American Independence" is the name of Eagle Forum's 1997 video documentary. $25 from Eagle Forum, PO Box 618, Alton, IL 62002. (618)462-5415 ----- EAGLE FORUM PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 ******************************* Our site features: Phyllis Schlafly Columns The Phyllis Schlafly Report Education Reporter ******************************* URL: http://www.eagleforum.org E-mail: eagle@eagleforum.org ________________________________ Get on the Eagle E-mail list today! Just send an e-mail message to eagle@eagleforum.org with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line! ________________________________ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton enlist weathermen to scare public about global warming Date: 02 Oct 1997 13:30:28 -0500 (CDT) National Center for Policy Analysis POLICY DIGEST Thursday, October 2, 1997 In Today's News CLINTON ENLISTS WEATHER FORECASTERS IN GLOBAL WARMING EFFORT To some observers, the Clinton administration is following a policy of "let's do something, let's do anything" on the issues of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists haven't yet agreed there is even a problem, critics say, yet the President is preparing to sign an international agreement in Kyoto, Japan, in December which would cost the Amert," "Performance Today." President Clinton talked to 100 national and local television weather forecasters about human-caused global climate change. However, * A Gallup poll of members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society found that only 17 percent agree that human actions are causing global warming. * No one knows precisely how much proposed plans to cut greenhouse gases will cost -- but the National Center for Policy Analysis cites estimates of $200 billion in costs to U.S. gross domestic product. * Washington University's Center for the Study of American Business estimates that stabilizing annual carbon dioxide emissions at their 1990 levels by 2010 "will reduce GDP by 0.2 percent to 0.7 percent and will decrease total employment by 900,000." Some economists estimate 1.5 million jobs or more could be at risk. A DRI/McGraw Hill study estimated that a $200 a ton carbon tax -- enough to push levels of emissions below 1990 levels, as required by the accord -- would cost the U.S. about $350 billion a year in lost output -- or about 4.2 percent of projected GDP. Sources: Perspective, "Answer: New England," Investor's Business Daily, and James Bennet, "Clinton Nudges TV Forecasters on the Climate," New York Times, both October 2, 1997. For information on NCPA's recent Capitol Hill Briefing on Global Warming go to http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/gwhot.html **************************************************************************** NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS DALLAS, TEXAS "Making Ideas Change the World" Internet Address: http://www.ncpa.org **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Scrap the income tax Date: 02 Oct 1997 13:44:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- National Center for Policy Analysis POLICY DIGEST Thursday, October 2, 1997 In Other News SCRAP THE INCOME TAX Following recent horror stories of taxpayer abuse by the IRS, economists recommend taking a fresh look at why America's forefathers rejected the creation of a national income tax. * The Founders rejected all direct taxes that were not apportioned to each state by population. * The Supreme Court held the income tax unconstitutional as late as 1893. Analysts note around the turn of the century liberals began a "soak-the-rich" campaign in a push for a national income tax. Conservatives in Congress tried to derail the movement by supporting the tax only as a constitutional amendment -- believing it would certainly fail. * On June 16, 1909, President Taft sent a message to Congress recommending a constitutional amendment to legalize federal income taxes. * The Amendment passed the House 318-14 -- and unanimously passed the Senate. * On Feb. 12, 1913, after three-fourths of the states ratified it, the 16th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. The collection process started out slowly but rapidly progressed: * At first the income tax was only 1 percent of the first $20,000 and gradually rose to only 7 percent for income above $500,000. * Most people didn't pay any income tax, with only 5 percent paying the tax as late as 1939. * World War II greatly accelerated the tax, when collection was made for the first time in payroll -- before the taxpayer saw his paycheck. Former IRS commissioner T. Coleman Andrews said the 16th Amendment effectively repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, empowering the tax collector to invade our homes, our papers and inquire into our private affairs. Some economists recommend repealing the 16th amendment, passing a balanced budget amendment, and outlawing deficit spending during peacetime. Cal Thomas (syndicated columnist), "Scrub the Tax and the Agency?," Washington Times, October 1, 1997. **************************************************************************** NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS DALLAS, TEXAS "Making Ideas Change the World" Internet Address: http://www.ncpa.org **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Light before TWA crash probably fire, study says Date: 02 Oct 1997 17:22:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [IMAGE] Light before TWA crash probably fire, study says 10/01/97 Associated Press NEW YORK - Dealing a blow to the theory that a missile brought down TWA Flight 800, a study by the FBI and the CIA says the streak of light seen by more than 200 people just before the crash was probably the plane breaking up and spilling burning fuel. The seven-month study, which is nearing completion, found that "what people interpreted as a missile was in fact the aircraft after the first explosion rocked it," Carolyn Osborn, a CIA spokeswoman, said Tuesday. "The plane continued to gain altitude, giving the appearance of a missile," she said. Investigators know the crash in 1996 followed an explosion in the center fuel tank, but they are still investigating what caused it. They are leaning toward mechanical failure but have not entirely ruled out a bomb or missile. The FBI had asked the CIA for help analyzing more than 200 eyewitness reports of something resembling a flare in the sky just before the Boeing 747 blew up, New York FBI head James Kallstrom told Congress earlier this month. Lending help were CIA weapons specialists - experts on how missiles explode and how planes behave when they are hit by them, Ms. Osborn said. Investigators used infrared imagery and sound propagation to study how the sound of the blast traveled over the water and perhaps caused witnesses to see the explosion before they heard it. Investigators interviewed each of the witnesses and went to the spot where each person had been to determine how much they could have seen. They also used weather, radar and flight data. The final report must be forwarded to Mr. Kallstrom for review in the next 30 days, Ms. Osborn said. The Paris-bound jumbo jet exploded July 17, 1996, shortly after leaving New York's Kennedy Airport, killing all 230 people on board. The analysis concluded that most of the witnesses probably could not have seen the initial explosion of a jet that rose 13,700 feet and flew 10 miles off the coast before crashing. Instead, they saw the beginning stages of the plane's breakup after the nose section had been ripped from the body, the study found. © 1997 The Dallas Morning News ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: Where School Teaches Money Really Goes.... (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1997 07:51:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org Liberty-and-Justice , "piml@mars.galstar.com" , pin , "prj@mail.msen.com" , quinn@warroom.com July 28,1997 Average NEA salary-benefit package worth $97,000 Related Items List of salaries By Mike Antonucci =A91997, WorldNetDaily.com The salaries and benefits of U.S. teachers have risen substantially in recent years, with the average package now approaching $48,000 annually. But this compensation is paltry compared to the deal worked out by the staff of the National Education Association in Washington, D.C. The average NEA employee earned over $97,000 in cash and benefits last year =97 $70,780 in salary and allowances, and another $26,230 in benefits. Nearly 86 percent of the union's national employees received more than the average teacher. In fact, 130 employees =97 a full 22 percent of its work force =97 received more than $100,000 in cash from the union last year. NEA's 597-member staff consumes a payroll of $42.3 million and an additional $15.7 million in benefits. The top earner was outgoing President Keith Geiger, who walked off with $309,400. His successor, Robert F. Chase, received $244,000 as vice president. The figures for Chase are particularly edifying because, at a conference in California in February, Chase claimed not to know how much he made. An insistent union member finally received a written response from Chase that pegged his salary in the $180,000 range. This half-truth conveniently leaves off several cash allowances =97 some of which total as much as 20 percent of annual salary. The cash compensation figures cited here include basic salary, living allowances, "fringe benefit" allowances, travel allowances, companion travel payments and other taxable stipends. Benefit costs include medical, dental, retirement, life insurance and other payments not made directly to the employee. These annualized averages may even be understated because, for the purpose of computing averages, WorldNetDaily has assumed that all 597 employees worked full-time for the entire year. However, 25 employees received less than $10,000 from the union, suggesting they worked less than a full year or part-time. WorldNetDaily also omitted disbursements to NEA's board of directors, whose salaries are mostly paid by the state affiliates they represent. Even so, an additional $2.3 million was disbursed to the approximately 160-member board. Perks granted to NEA officials were unavailable, but it is likely they are comparable to those afforded to board members of the California Teachers Association, NEA's largest affiliate. Board members receive: First-class air travel when the trip exceeds four hours. Authorization for chartered airplane travel in case "constraints of timeliness" would "make it imperative." Reimbursement for laundry, dry cleaning, in-room movies and exercise facilities when a trip consists of three days or more. A separate union phone line in their homes. Automobile maintenance and repair, plus comprehensive insurance coverage if the vehicle is driven more than 10,000 miles for union business. The union self-insures the deductible. Office supplies and computer equipment for board members' homes. A new set of luggage and a briefcase every three years. $300 per month for child, pet or garden care. Companion travel to three union events per year. Executive officers receive, in addition to the above benefits, 30 days paid vacation and 24 days of sick leave per year; companion travel for 30 days per year; additional credit cards; an $1,800 per year annuity; free income tax preparation and free financial planning services. The union self-insures the deductibles for their health and welfare benefit costs, and maintains residences near CTA headquarters in Burlingame for the primary use of the executive officers. The accompanying table shows the top 50 NEA earners for fiscal year 1995-96. All numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. NEA Cash Compensation, 1995-96 Staff Member, PositionSalary1)Keith Geiger, president$309,4002)Robert F. Chase, vice president$244,0003)Marilyn Monahan, treasurer$239,6004)Don Cameron, executive director$217,1005)Mary Elizabeth Teasley, director$155,6006)Kenneth Melley, asst. exec. director$154,7007)Daniel C. McKillip, regional director$152,6008)Tony J. Rollins, asst. exec. director$151,0009)Eugene Dryer, regional director$146,90010)Earl H. Jones, director$142,20011)Donald J. Keck, org. specialist$141,60012)Linda Boitano, manager$141,50013)Phillip A. Moeckli, regional director$140,70014)Nelson S. Okino, regional director$140,40015)John De Mars, director$139,30016)Elverta Williams, regional director$139,00017)Irma L. Kramer, asst. exec. director$137,50018)Evelyn M. Temple, asst. exec. director$137,00019)Lynn M. Coffin, senior director$136,30020)Larry Diebold, special assistant$135,30021)Kristeen Hanselman, director$133,00022)Lawrence Sorensen, director$132,70023)Barbara J. Yentzer, director$132,70024)Wayne S. Diviney, asst. exec. director$131,90025)Gerald T. Gripper, org. specialist$130,10026)Sheila Simmons, director$129,60027)Charles E. Bolden, org. specialist$128,60028)Charles T. Williams, director$127,20029)Edwin L. Haynes, director$127,10030)Leon Felix Jr., regional director$126,70031)John McKaharay, org. specialist$125,90032)Patricia Ann Orrange, director$124,60033)John Chase, manager$124,10034)Fred Eugene Grooms, org. specialist$123,70035)Arlene Suzanne Flores, manager$123,30036)Carmen A. Quesada, manager$122,90037)Samuel Pizzigatti, director$122,60038)Ronald D. Henderson, director$122,40039)Lynn Ohman, director$122,10040)Terry A. Sarra, director$121,30041)Mae Tanaka Kim, org. specialist$120,60042)Barry A. Melamed, org. specialist$120,40043)Warlene Gary, manager$119,80044)John E. Dunlop, director$119,80045)Richard J. Nuanes, director$119,30046)Maurice Joseph, dep. general counsel$118,30047)Peter Arum, org. specialist$118,20048)Wilbur V. Luna, manager$118,10049)Patrick H. Perez, org. specialist$117,80050)William R. Martin, director$117,700 Sarah Foster is an associate of the Western Journalism Center and a reporter for its Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily. Back to top of page Back to WorldNetDaily Home Page Go to the archive of WorldNetDaily Exclusives Send e-mail to the Editor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: www pages of 4 groups we need to support Date: 03 Oct 1997 09:36:35 -0500 (CDT) =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-= =3D http://www.mcs.net/~1pyleprn/jpfo.html =20 JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP =20 [IMAGE] ABOUT JPFO =20 [IMAGE] JPFO TRUTH VS. ADL LIES =20 [IMAGE] GRAN'PA JACK BOOKLETS =20 [IMAGE] ITEMS OF INTEREST =20 [IMAGE] ASK THE RABBI =20 [IMAGE] BILL OF RIGHTS DAY =20 [IMAGE] Click HERE for The Members Forum =20 [IMAGE] Click HERE for The Firearms Sentinel =20 - =20 http://www.mcs.net/~1pyleprn/law_pole.html [IMAGE] The Official Publication of The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society =20 Content by Steven A. Silver =20 [IMAGE] [IMAGE] These pages are currently under contruction and will be updated shortly by the new LSAS Information Technology (IT) Liaison , Wayne B. Ericksen, P.E. Please check back soon! Lots of new articles are coming. [IMAGE] The "Pre-Oath of Office" [IMAGE] Bravehearts by John Harris [IMAGE] A solution to Judicial Tyranny [IMAGE] Self Defense and Other 2ND Amendment Rights [IMAGE] Momorandum on Arms and Freedom [IMAGE] Update: Hickman Petitions the Supreme Court [IMAGE] 'Hickman' Before the Supreme Court [IMAGE] No Compromise by Ed Monk [IMAGE] Another Case Goes to the Ninth Circuit=20 [IMAGE] Second Amendment: A 'State's' Right? [IMAGE] LSAS Provides a Quote to Remember [IMAGE] Read Back-Issue Articles from The Liberty Pole [IMAGE] Time to Renew Your LSAS Membership Hot!=20 =20 Judicial Watch, P.O. Box 44444, Washington, DC 20026. Tel: (888) JWETHIC, Fax: (202) 646-5199. Contributions are tax-deductible. © 1997, Judicial Watch. All Rights Reserved. 020282 hits since August 3, 1997 Judicial Watch Overview JWatch Logo Judicial Watch is Fighting to Uncover Government Corruption and Uphold Justice =20 At the present time, Judicial Watch has fourteen on-going cases to expose government corruption in the Clinton Administration alone. (For the most up-to-date details on all our cases check out Judicial Watch's Press Releases.) Judicial Watch is also promoting needed legal reform. Some of the cases include: =20 The Filegate Case -- Judicial Watch is representing those citizens whose FBI files were wrongly accessed -- possibly for political espionage purposes -- by Hillary Clinton, Bernard Nussbaum, Anthony Marceca, and Craig Livingstone. =20 Campaign Finance Scandal related cases. Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover the Department of Commerce's practice of selecting companies for trade missions in exchange for donations to the Democratic National Committee. These efforts led to the only sworn testimony of notorious fundraiser, Clinton friend, and possible Chinese agent John Huang. Judicial Watch's efforts uncovered the campaign finance scandal. Judicial Watch remains active in uncovering illegal fundraising activities of the Clinton Administration, and has asked the court for permission to redepose John Huang. =20 Paula Jones -- Judicial Watch has brought a class action derivative suit on behalf of the policyholders of State Farm Insurance Company against State Farm and its top executives for improperly paying Bill Clinton's legal fees and expenses. Clinton pressured State Farm Insurance to pay his legal expenses in Paula Jones' lawsuit despite the fact that insurance policies do not generally cover intentional conduct of defendants, such as Ms. Jones' alleged sexual harassment and libel related claims. =20 Other Judicial Watch Cases. Judicial Watch is also seeking the truth in other matters, such as why did the Los Angeles Airport Authority pay Webster Hubbell for legal fees when he was under investigation and had resigned from the Department of Justice? Another case involves Judicial Watch's efforts, through the Freedom of Information Act, to get to the bottom of the political motivations behind Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign finance related matters, despite overwhelming evidence of the need for such an appointment. Judicial Watch also has filed a lawsuit to obtain the documents that will explain the Clinton Justice Department's misconduct in three matters ^=D6 Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Richard Jewell/Olympic bombing cover-ups. Furthermore, Judicial Watch has filed suit to challenge the implementation of the Family Responsibility Act provisions on abstinence education by the Clinton Administration. Lastly, Judicial Watch filed three related cases on behalf of Accuracy in the Media to uncover documentation behind the Clinton Administration's investigation into the death of former White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. Judicial Watch in the News =20 While Congress is engaged in partisan bickering and cover-ups to protect both political parties, Judicial Watch is proceeding full speed ahead in the courts in its fight for open and honest government. Judicial Watch is also studying ways to reform our legal system to make it more responsive and less expensive for the average citizen. Judicial Watch currently is involved in efforts to bring better judges to the judiciary; judges who are well-trained, accountable, adequately compensated, and not political. Check out our Press Releases and "What They're Saying Section" to keep up with Judicial Watch. How You Can Help Judicial Watch is a volunteer organization made up of lawyers, investigators, and concerned citizens based in Washington, D.C. If you are committed to the cause, you can volunteer to assist Judicial Watch. More importantly, regardless of where you are from you can help Judicial Watch by making a tax-deductible contribution to Judicial Watch, a non-profit 501(c)3 corporation. It costs Judicial Watch over $10,000 in time and expense to take each deposition, and we estimate that the deposition of Hillary Clinton in the "Filegate" case will cost over $100,000. For more details please check out our donation page or send your tax deductible donation to: Judicial Watch P.O. Box 44444 Washington DC, 20026 . Questions/Comments =20 We want to hear from you. Email us at jwatch@erols.com, call us at (888) JWETHIC, fax us at 202-646-5199 or write us a letter to "Judicial Watch, PO Box 44444, Washington DC, 20026." =20 Last Updated 9/29/97 [IMAGE] Judicial Watch, P.O. Box 44444, Washington, DC 20026. Tel: (888) JWETHIC, Fax: (202) 646-5199. Contributions are tax-deductible. © 1997, Judicial Watch. All Rights Reserved. =20 The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit, legal and educational organization that specializes in the defense of religious liberty and human rights.=20 We rely solely on the generous financial gifts of individuals like you. =20 * A MESSAGE FROM JOHN W. WHITEHEAD, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER=20 _________________________________________________________________ =20 * HOW CAN I HELP ? The Rutherford Institute, P.O. Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906 Telephone: (804) 978-3888 Fax: (804) 978-1789 tristaff@rutherford.org _________________________________________________________________ I founded The Rutherford Institute in 1982 to respond to the widespread discrimination and persecution I witnessed against religious persons. Although we have fought thousands of cases and responded to hundreds of thousands of calls for help and information for more than a decade, the need for The Rutherford Institute is even greater today.We are living in an age of religious apartheid--religion has been systematically removed from American public life, and we no longer enjoy true religious freedom. The Rutherford Institute, however, remains committed to fighting for the rights of religious persons in both the United States and abroad. I hope that you too will sense the need to protect religious freedom and choose to support The Rutherford Institute today. John W. Whitehead _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Waco the rules of engagement now on Video Date: 03 Oct 1997 10:47:26 -0500 (CDT) I just got a phone call from Mike McNulty (cops555@aol.com) one of the co-producers of the movie "Waco the rules of engagement", about the BATF raid on the Branch Davidian. Please forward this all over internet: This Monday 10-6-97 details will be available on how to order your own VHS video copy of the movie. We will have to act fast because the producer has filed a law suit against them in an attempt to stop this. Thats all I know at this point, you can e-mail Mike or wait for Monday. Regards, Paul Watson, Dallas I have no connections other than the same desire for justice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: www pages of 4 groups we need to support Date: 03 Oct 1997 09:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Paul, the one there needs to be an L like in Lincoln (lots of fonts make these hard to spot), JPFO is at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html the URL for LSAC is http://www.mcs.net/~1pyleprn/law_pole.html And as you said very well worth a look. Boyd Kneeland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Waco the rules of engagement now on Video Date: 03 Oct 1997 15:45:25 -0700 (PDT) I think that a -lot- of small films have their chances of wider theater distribution killed by early video release. I've no idea at all what's going on with waco the rules of engagement, but I'm willing to wait a year to buy the video if theres any chance of it appearing in a theater within a 4 hour drive of Seattle. Just IMO. Boyd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg Subject: Re: Waco the rules of engagement now on Video Date: 03 Oct 1997 16:55:02 -0700 (PDT) > if theres any chance of it appearing in a theater within a > 4 hour drive of Seattle. Just IMO. Boyd Yo, Boyd - it's already been to Portland twice in the last few months. Last time I did the drive, it didn't take me four hours :-) ('course, I wasn't running from Lynnwood or Marysville, either :-) ) Brewster -- *********************************************************************** "Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." Tacitus W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Police Acadamy 2000 ???(FBI) Date: 04 Oct 1997 10:57:28 -0500 FBI trainees goof, nab innocent teen-agers October 3, 1997 Web posted at: 9:35 p.m. EDT (0135 GMT) ELIZABETHTOWN, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Armed FBI trainees in bulletproof vests and camouflage surrounded a group of teen-agers, handcuffed them and forced them to the ground before realizing they had the wrong people. The trainees were taking part in a training exercise at a town square Wednesday night in which they were apparently supposed to nab others taking part in the drill. Instead, up to 30 FBI trainees jumped out of a caravan of vehicles and descended on the innocent teen-agers, bound their wrists with plastic ties and ordered them to lie face-down on the sidewalk. After about 30 minutes, the agents set the teens free. The FBI would not comment on the specifics of the drill, but an FBI official apologized Friday and two agents visited the home of one of the youths Thursday night to express their regrets. ------------- And in another victory for different standards for police and the general citizenry, in which a judge states "We decline to put police doing their jobs in the same category as criminals doing theirs," (man involved was not charged with any crime) and ; Although criminal laws in many states define deadly force to include force likely to cause serious injury, that definition should not be used to judge reasonable police conduct, See the entire story at. http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/nation/100397/nation23_23037.html The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: comparison test (answers furnished) Date: 05 Oct 1997 18:57:57 -0600 From this week's Washington Weekly THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO VS. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM A point-by-point comparison As part of their Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1847-48 proposed the following ten goals: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. In 1992 and 1996, the Democrat Party of America published party platforms which included the following goals that are compared, point by point, to the ten goals of the Communist Manifesto as listed above: 1. "We will protect our old growth forests, preserve critical habitats, provide a genuine 'no net loss' policy on wetlands." 2. "We must... make the rich pay their fair share in taxes." 3. [An inheritance tax that gives the State its share of the inheritance, has already been achieved.] 4. [Nothing applicable] 5. [The Federal Reserve has already been established] 6. "We will rebuild America by investing more in transportation... and a national information network." 7. "The Democratic Party insists that corporate leaders invest in the long-term, by providing workers with living wages and benefits, education and training, a safe, healthy place to work, and opportunities for greater involvement in company decision making and ownership. Employers must make sure workers share in the benefits of the good years, as well as the burdens of the bad ones. Employers must offer employees the opportunity to share in the profits they help create. Employers must respect the commitment of workers to their families, and must work to provide good pensions and health care... The President and Vice President have created a brownfields initiative to bring life back to abandoned and contaminated property by reforming outdated regulations and providing incentives for cleanup." 8. [Nothing Applicable] 9. "It is time to reestablish the private/public partnership to ensure that family farmers get a fair return for their labor and investment, so that consumers receive safe and nutritious foods, and that needed investments are made in basic research, education, rural business development, market development and infrastructure to sustain rural communities." 10. "Strengthening public schools." To put things in the proper perspective, Section 8, Article I of the U.S. Constitution specifically enumerates the powers of the Congress of the United States: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. The Constitution has not been repealed (at least not by any democratic process) and therefore is still the supreme law of the land. Yet with the possible exception of the fourth and the eighth goals of the Communist Manifesto, Democrats have either achieved or implemented the goals of the Communist Manifesto in their own Party Platform, masked by NewSpeak terms such as "fairness" and "opportunity." One possible--and very troubling--interpretation of these documents is that we have been asleep at the switch and failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... Published in the Oct. 6, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: comparison test (answers furnished) Date: 05 Oct 1997 18:15:31 -0700 -snip- >The Constitution has not been repealed (at least not by any >democratic process) and therefore is still the supreme law of the >land. Yet with the possible exception of the fourth and the >eighth goals of the Communist Manifesto, Democrats have either >achieved or implemented the goals of the Communist Manifesto in >their own Party Platform, masked by NewSpeak terms such as >"fairness" and "opportunity." And while the Democrats were doing this, the Revolutionary Conservative Republican 104th & 105th Congresses have been busy attacking the Bill of Rights directly by passing things like the Communications Decency Act and re-upping the no-guns-within xxxx feet of schools thing after the Supreme Court declared the original version unconstitutional. Etc. Etc. >One possible--and very troubling--interpretation of these >documents is that we have been asleep at the switch and failed to >preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United >States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... No kidding. Oh my. Let's write our senators! Let's write our representatives! Let's write TO THE PRESIDENT! Surely they'll see the errors of their ways; I'm certain it was all just a big mistake! Claire Wolfe said it best (so far): "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards." - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Bill Of Attainder Project (fwd) Date: 06 Oct 1997 07:38:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- mlindste@clandjop.com, jeffs@gr.cns.net, fktown@flash.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, Shiloh1@airmail.net, nox2128@montana.com ********************************** BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT ********************************** Legislative Responsibility How well does your legislator understand part of his job is preserving your individual rights? Since the 104th Congress more legislation has been introduced which shows a clear difference between "Controlist" political philosophy, and liberty. One example is the "McCain Bill" for campaign reform.. This bill would severely restrict organizations from publicly supporting a candidate without disclosing where the funds come from. It has the Christian Coalition in such a "twit" that they are teaming up with the A.C.L.U. to try and protect their "civil liberties." If we could only teach them the law should be based upon the premise, "Thou shalt not steal." Senator McCain's bill is something he even has to admit his colleagues have "Constitutional questions" about. McCain is one of many Republicrats who do not care about preserving American rights or values. They do not seem to understand they have a responisbility for preserving liberty at all. It is time to tell them. Do you understand what your right to private property hould be? Another Congressman who does not understand your rights is Rep. Neil Abercrombie who recently wrote Dr. Calvin Ruskaup of Hawaii, trying to justify asset forfeiture. Rep. Abercrombie says that asset forfeiture has been used for two hundred years. He is right but the Congressman seems to miss the fact that it has been illegally administered for that long. The Bill Of Attainder Project can argue this point well. Asset forfeiture is theft. Congressman, you are a thief. Anyone who thinks they can justify asset forfeiture justifies theft. It is against the law for me to walk up and rob you, it is against the law for you to make a law that robs me. When government deprives its citizens of the right to own private property, over the right of the government to confiscate it, it deprives citizens of their guaranteed rights. It destroys a relevant factor of their citizenship. When the government does not promote the idea that taking someone's property is theft, it is not likely anyone in the society will understand the basic sin of theft. It is government's job to set the example. The example in our society says it is perfectly fine to make a law that permits theft. The federal government currently has over three hundred laws that permit the government to seize and confiscate property. Congressmen, it is time to realize your resposibility to preserve American life, liberty, and property. You do not have the right to make laws that plunder. The use of asset forfeiture has caused other abuses in our system. If you are traveling and you are found to fit the government's "profile" you can be stopped, searched, and abused. One person who knows how well the "profile" system works is Lawrence Boze. Mr. Boze was "profiled" as a terrorist, or drug dealer by airport security on a trip back to Washington. He is a big man, who was wearing a suit, and had no reasonable significant thing about him that would seem suspicious to a reasonable person. He is an African American. He is also a former President of the American Bar Association. It did not seem to matter to the police that "profiled" him. They searched and abused him anyway. To "profile" someone is to outlaw them. Outlawing someone through the use of the law, is a bill of attainder. Another example of outlawing apart from Mr. Boze's experience is what happened during the McCarthy era. Many accused of being a Communists were persecuted, not only by the law, but socially. The process of using "profiles" is the same kind of tyranny. Republicrats will continue to inflict laws like those described above until Americans refuse to let their representatives have the power to do so. The simple act of defining "bill of attainder" will stop your Congressmen from abuses like asset forfeiture. Please read our website. The Bill Of Attainder Project has a new website we want everyone to study. Legislators that do not understand they do not have the right to make laws that plunder American life, liberty, and property need to be told the information contained on our website.. Otherwise, legislators like McCain, and Abercrombie will continue to introduce laws and ideas that will encroach upon American liberty. There isn't that much left of it to let any more go to waste. Please take a look at the material on our site, and demand that your Congressmen become legislatively responsible for your rights: http:www.isc-durant.com/tom/billofattainder ***************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Stephen Jones on Meet the Press Date: 06 Oct 1997 09:15:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS (202)885-4598 (Sundays: (202)885-4200) MR. RUSSERT: Welcome again to MEET THE PRESS. Our issues this Sunday morning: This was the scene in Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995, shortly after 9 A.M.; the worst domestic terrorism ever; 168 people dead, 500 injured. This June, Timothy McVeigh sentenced to death. Tomorrow, the trial begins for his alleged accomplice, Terry Nichols. We'll talk with McVeigh's former lawyer, Stephen Jones, and the new head of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Larry Pozner. Then we'll turn to abuses by the IRS. snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MR. RUSSERT: But first, a new trial in Oklahoma City bombing starts tomorrow for Terry Nichols. He was allegedly an accomplice to Timothy McVeigh, who was sentenced to death in June. We're joined by McVeigh's former attorney, Stephen Jones, and by the new head of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Larry Pozner. Gentlemen, welcome. Mr. Pozner, let me start with you. How is the trial of Terry Nichols different from that of Timothy McVeigh? MR. POZNER: It's different in its evidence and it's different in its feeling. The evidence that they used against McVeigh was essentially: This is the guy who brought the bomb to Oklahoma City. They can't say that about Nichols. The Nichols case is much more complex. It's based on acts done over several months, and many of these acts have a different interpretation that can be given them. So it's a weaker case for the government. Spiritually, it feels different. The American people said, when they looked at McVeigh, 'That's the guy they say bombed the courthouse.' With Mr. Nichols, they say, 'That's the guy they say is involved somehow,' but America doesn't have a clear picture and a presumption of guilt like they had with Mr. McVeigh. MR. RUSSERT: Now, Mr. Jones, what's your sense? How will the trial of Terry Nichols differ from that of your former client, Timothy McVeigh? MR. JONES: Well, I would agree, I think, wholeheartedly with what Larry said. The many problems that we had, in terms of the assumption of guilt as opposed to the presumption of innocence, clearly Mike Tigar does not carry. And I think that there will be some significant differences in the type of evidence that will be offered in this case. MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Timothy McVeigh's stoic presence, almost stern look, contributed to the perception across America that he was guilty? MR. JONES: No. I don't think that's what contributed to it. I think what contributed to it was his being led out of the Noble County Courthouse surrounded, shackled, in an orange jumpsuit, after the world's media had been alerted to be there, and then the continual unabashed leaking by federal law enforcement officials which created this assumption of guilt. It wouldn't have made any difference whether he had been smiling or he had been looking straight ahead. MR. RUSSERT: During that trial of Timothy McVeigh, you said something that I would like to explore a little bit today. You said it's certainly a larger conspiracy than two people. There were at least four others besides McVeigh and Nichols involved. How do you know that? MR. JONES: Well, I didn't say there were four others besides McVeigh and Nichols. I certainly said that there were others involved, but I didn't say that either Mr. McVeigh or Mr. Nichols was guilty. But to answer your question, I think that, during our trial, there were two pieces of evidence that came out. First, all three of the people that were at Elliott's Body Shop said that two men rented the Ryder truck that carried the explosions. It's obvious the second person was not Terry Nichols. We argued the first person was not McVeigh. But regardless of what you might think about the first person, the second one could not have been Terry Nichols, did not match his description at all. Also, the government put on evidence that two men purchased the ammonium nitrate. One of the witnesses there testified the person resembled Terry Nichols, although his identification was undercut by the conflicting identification of the vehicle. But he said the second person was not Tim McVeigh. So there's the presence of at least two other people brought on by government evidence. MR. RUSSERT: Where are they? Why hasn't the government aprehended them? MR. JONES: Well, I think one of them was killed at the Oklahoma City bombing, as you know. The medical examiner had nine left legs as body parts and only eight bodies that were missing left legs. So there was an extra body, as represented by this ninth left leg. The other reason I think they can't find them is simply because they do not have a picture, probably don't have fingerprints, and they don't really have a lead. That's not unusual. It took the FBI years to find Abbey Hoffman and Bernadine Dorn and Katherine Powers and other people where they did have a name, did have a picture, fingerprints and a list of associates. So the fact that it's been two and a half years and they haven't found the others is not to me surprising. MR. RUSSERT: Larry Pozner, the fact that Terry Nichols was not in Oklahoma City the morning of the bombing, the fact, as Mr. Jones pointed out, there are people who fit other descriptions who seem to have accompanied Timothy McVeigh at certain times, isn't that going to be very difficult for the government to prove Nichols as an accomplice? And secondly, based on what you know, how large was this conspiracy? MR. POZNER: Well, Tim, the government is going to ignore the lack of Nichols at the crime scene. They're going to say to the jury, "We concede Nichols wasn't there. What we're saying" -the government will say- "is Nichols was there at other key times. He was helping finance the bomb, he was helping build the bomb, and he was helping get a getaway car stationed for McVeigh." Nichols has to say there are explanations for this conduct, and indeed, the pretrial evidence indicates there are some pretty strong explanations for why he had fertilizer, why he was around McVeigh at key times. So that kind of thing-he wasn't there, he was there-isn't going to spell the difference. It's the intricate conspiracy the government has to put together. Now, one of the problems the government has is: Who else is involved? The more jurors have questions-Are there other people? Why are there descriptions that don't fit Nichols or McVeigh?=F9the more that favors the defense. But don't look for the government or the defense to try to solve the entire puzzle who may also be involved. MR. RUSSERT: Whatever happened to John Doe 2? MR. POZNER: Good question. John Doe 2 disappeared off the goverment's horizon when the government couldn't find a John Doe that fit the crime. It is a real weakness in the case. If you'll remember, right before we went to trial on McVeigh, after two years of "We're looking for John Doe Number 2," the government pops up and says, "There really wasn't a John Doe Number 2." They think a lot of people in America are uneasy with that blithe explanation. MR. RUSSERT: My sense is, Larry Pozner, that you think the government has a big challenge, a very difficult time, in their case against Terry Nichols. MR. POZNER: In a conventional trial, this would be a real tough case for the government. What we can't figure out is how to weigh in the allegation that 168 Americans died because of Nichols' work with McVeigh. It's a very powerful, emotional argument. Does an American jury feel like applying the presumption of innocence to anyone accused of being part of this case? MR. RUSSERT: Stephen Jones, Terry Nichols went in two days after the bombing and sat down with the FBI voluntarily, and talked for nine and half hours. How difficult will it be for him to overcome some of the statements he made to the FBI? MR. JONES: I think that the government's strategy in this case is to use Terry Nichols as its primary witness through the nine and a half-hour statement he gave the FBI. They will attempt to say that, =F4While he came in to try to get his story out front, he knew we were looking for him, he knew that Tim McVeigh had been arrested.=F6 And what they will do is lay out the statement and then try to prove its falsity and ask the jury to infer from the falsity that the only reason he would lie is that he was involved. From the defense standpoint, Terry Nichols is, of course, its most important witness. The defense must overcome whatever prejudicial effect, if any, there is of the nine and a half-hour statement. In the final analysis, it's going to boil down to how the jury reads Terry Nichols. MR. RUSSERT: You also, during the last trial, suggested that the government knew that the Oklahoma federal building was in jeopardy the day before it was actually blown up. How strong is your evidence that the government, in fact, knew just that? MR. JONES: I think it's overpowering. The government has done everything it can to do what H.R. Haldeman, Mr. Nixon's chief of staff, once said you couldn't do, put the toothpaste back in the tube after it's been squeezed out. I think that it's a tragedy that the Congress and the state grand jury and others are being led by the government with a ring through their nose. There is an abundance of evidence that suggests, at a minimum, the ATF, and probably the FBI, on the night of April the 18th, knew that federal buildings in Oklahoma were at risk. The government had an informant in this group. They regularly polygraphed her. I've read her notes-all of which was given to the government before April the 19th. And I think that they acted on the suspicion-that's why we have proof and evidence of people who saw the bombsquad trucks around the Murrah Building early that morning, saw the sniffer dogs and so forth. And then the government didn't find anything and pulled them off, only to find a couple of hours later that the bomb went off. The government cannot admit that it knew and didn't act responsibly, because there are rather expensive civil suits with very good plaintiffs' lawyers breathing down the government's neck. MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the government took adequate precautions? MR. JONES: No, of course not. The Murrah Building was unprotected. Here you had a child day-care center in the second floor, in a building that had at least five law enforcement agencies, including two that are extremely unpopular with a large number of people. With inadequate security, poor design against terrorists in the environment in which we live, that almost amounts to gross negligence itself. But in this case, I think the evidence goes further. But there's no question but what the government has done everything it can to bottle it up. MR. RUSSERT: Stephen Jones, Larry Pozner, we thank you for joining us. We'll be watching the Nichols case all week long here on NBC News. Thanks very much for coming in. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Election Debates (fwd) Date: 06 Oct 1997 14:57:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ******************************** BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT ******************************** THIRD PARTY VOICES On October 7th, the leadership for all of America's third parties will make a case for a voice in the debates with Republicrats. Last time each of the Republicrats took large dollars then ducked out of any real debate with any third party. What could be a stake here, before the election board is the chance to present the American people with a liberty based agenda. Without a discussion of individual liberty, the Republicrats can perpetuate policies of "Controlism" over our life to a further extent than they already have. What will not be heard if third parties are not allowed to debate are Libertarians, Reform, U. S. Taxpayers, Natural Law, Green, and other parties, who are the voices of millions of Americans who want change. Individuals from all of these parties have come together in places like Oklahoma to support civil liberties reform. The election issues presented on the 7th will certainly be another place third parties will move in force. What if third parties do not succeed in being able to enter real debates with Republicrats? If they do not succeed the bulk of America will never hear anything but the propaganda of Congressmen like McCain, Shumer, Hyde, and Abercrombie who are dedicated to making laws that plunder our life, liberty, and property. What is at stake is a chance to tell America they are being robbed, and they are being lied to. It is time America knew the truth about civil liberties and the huge contingency of Congress that support "controlist policy." If you believe America should belong to Americans please let your third party representative know they represent your support in the election debate issue. If you would like to learn more about the bill of attainder issue please visit our website: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [RightNow] Strategic Weekly Briefings Review of "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster" (fwd) Date: 06 Oct 1997 15:23:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:09:53 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: RightNow@MailList.Net Strategic Weekly Briefings Due diligence by Craig S. Karpel The February 23, 1997 New York Times Magazine featured an article entitled The Clinton Haters. The story characterized such individuals as former Arkansas Development Finance Authority official Larry Nichols, then-Washington correspondent of London's Sunday Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Foster death investigator Hugh Sprunt and reporter Christopher Ruddy as "Clinton crazies." Here's the capsule bio that described Ruddy: Who: Chris Ruddy What: Clinton haters' answer to Woodward and Bernstein. Why: Dogged and brash, he will not quit on the story of Vincent Foster's death. Saying he was forced to leave the New York Post because he would not let the Foster story go, he now works for the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, writing articles for which he has been attacked by ABC Nightly News, 60 Minutes and the White House, which simply adds to his reputation among the conspiratorialists. "The White House," wrote the article's author, "calls the people I have met participants in 'conspiracy commerce.' Hugh Sprunt has his own name for this loose alliance: the 'co- belligerents.' When I told Ruddy that term, he promptly disagreed. "'I don't see myself as being involved in a war,' he said. That seemed the craziest statement of all." Body politics What a difference seven months can make. The New York Times Book Review, a section of the Times' Sunday edition, is a publication that can make or break a book in this country. Reviewers for other papers and magazines, chain bookstore buyers, TV-show bookers--all take it very seriously. This Sunday's issue ran a lengthy review of Ruddy's new book, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation, which was published last week by The Free Press, the prestigious imprint/imprimatur Simon & Schuster reserves for some of its most (in publishing lingo:) "important" books. The Times' review was headlined "Body politics: Has the investigation of Vincent Foster's death been a massive cover-up, a massive foul-up or a little of both?" It was illustrated with a stylized silhouette of a pistol whose hammer and trigger formed a question mark. No longer is Ruddy, in the opinion of the New York Times, a newspaper whose content is carefully calibrated, a "Clinton crazy." The worst appellation the review's author, Richard Brookhiser, a senior editor at the conservative National Review--and the Times' choice of reviewer is itself an indication of the paper's growing disenchantment with Clinton and his crew-- comes up with for Ruddy is rather mild: "Political journalists," Brookhiser writes, "don't like the Foster story because it is not the kind of thing they are trained to cover. Political journalism is a combination of policy wonkery and new journalism; its practitioners write about ideology and personality, not crime scenes and grand juries. If they don't like the fact that the [Foster] story has been taken over by crusaders like Ruddy, they have only themselves to blame for ceding it." Written in stone The "crusader" tag, while attributing to Ruddy an uncool excess of passion, has at least the virtue of not accusing him, as the Times did in February, of being insane. Here is the reviewer's only other description of the author: "Christopher Ruddy first wrote about the Foster story for the New York Post and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a daily newspaper owned by the conservative millionaire Richard Scaife." This is not cataclysmically condemnatory, given the fact that Brookhiser writes for National Review, a biweekly magazine owned by the conservative millionaire William F. Buckley Jr. I don't mean to suggest that the gray lady of American journalism is engaged in building up Christopher Ruddy as a hero of the official culture. Brookhiser writes that "Ruddy clearly believes that something dastardly happened, and he cannot stop dark hints from leaking out. 'If,' he writes on page 1, Vince Foster 'had been killed. . . . " If Ruddy didn't want to make such an Oliver Stone argument, even hypothetically, he should have left his rhetorical teasers on the cutting-room floor. "You don't have to believe in murder in high places to be unhappy with the way the Foster case has been handled. . . . " Ruddy, however, does not make an "Oliver Stone argument" on page 1 or anywhere else in his book. Here's what he actually says on the first page: "It was Wednesday afternoon, July 21, 1993, and the White House briefing room was humming with tension. A crisis was at hand, and the press corps was waiting for details. This much was known. White House deputy counsel Vincent Walker Foster Jr., one of the nation's highest federal officers and First Family confidant, was dead. His body had been found some 21 hours before in Fort Marcy Park, Va., just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., seven miles from the White House. "For a Clinton administration that was still struggling to find its footing, this was just the latest in a long line of crises running from Nannygate to Travelgate. If, as the U.S. Park Police suspected, the 48-year-old Foster had died by suicide, it was the first death of a high official since Secretary of Defense James Forrestal leaped from the 16th floor of the naval hospital in Bethesda, Md., in 1949. If, on the other hand, he had been killed, he would be highest-ranking White House official to be slain since Pres. John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. "At 3:38 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, White House Chief of Staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty and Communications Director Mark Gearan entered the briefing room." And so forth. Hints and allegations Ruddy isn't dropping a "dark hint" here; Brookhiser, on the other hand, did drop--from his quotation of Ruddy--the phrase "on the other hand." Ruddy is stating the reality that regardless of whether Foster's death was a suicide or a murder, it represented a major crisis for the Clinton administration, because unnatural deaths of high federal officials are extremely rare. Moreover, Ruddy isn't shy about "hinting" brightly that Foster's death was not a suicide. Is the following passage from Ruddy a "rhetorical teaser?": "The unusual haste of White House officials to get into Foster's office and to stymie police and Justice Department investigators, the Clintons' preposterous claims that they expressed no concern to aides about the personal papers kept in Foster's office, and evidence that key documents [that were in Foster's possession] such as the index of papers relating to the Clintons' business dealings are now missing are strong clues that Foster's death may have been related to the matters he was working on at the time, including matters involving the Clintons' business dealings." Why not his body? This sort of keen-witted analysis, coming after hundreds of pages of point-by-point debunking of the conclusion of the U.S. Park Police's Keystone Kops and dissection of the intellectual dishonesty of those champions of the public's right not to know, Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr, has nothing in common with Oliver Stone's "argument" in the motion picture JFK, an everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink superstructure tottering on a slender foundation of untruth: the notion, unsupported by a single historical fact, that John Kennedy was a peacenik the Pentagon wanted out of the picture. Brookhiser writes: "But so many loose ends suggest that the initial Park Police investigation was sloppy and that all subsequent ones--which essentially began by accepting its conclusions--have been lazy. Zealous colleagues may have rifled Foster's office; why not his body?" All the news that's fit to print A few months ago, making this sort of argument, even "hypothetically," might have caused Brookhiser himself to be dismissed as a "Clinton crazy." Now the Times' editors consider it, in the words of the paper's masthead motto, "fit to print." Let us count our blessings: this is progress. SWB's readers don't need permission to go out and buy a copy of Christopher Ruddy's fascinating, disturbing book, but those who do received it on Sunday. = What was the rush? This is what former FBI Director William S. Sessions has to say about The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation: "Christopher Ruddy has detailed a significant array of facts and issues involving the death of Mr. Foster. His work is serious and compelling. While enduring great criticism, he has tenaciously argued a persuasive case that the American public has not been told the complete facts of this case. "Mr. Ruddy has carefully avoided drawing undue inferences about the death. His reporting raises serious concerns about the handling of the Foster case. It is legitimate to question the process employed by authorities to make their conclusions." The July 19, 1993 Wall Street Journal editorialized, under the headline "What's the rush?": "So the gang that pulled the great travel office caper is now hell-bent on firing the head of the FBI." On July 19, 1993, Bill Clinton called Judge William S. Sessions, a Reagan appointee who had been director of the FBI since November 2, 1987, and told him he was fired. Twenty minutes later two Justice Department officials, accompanied by several armed FBI agents, confronted the director in his office. The telephone rang; it was the president. "You're terminated immediately," Clinton told Judge Sessions. "Please vacate your office." And, under armed guard, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was hustled out of the J. Edgar Hoover Building onto Pennsylvania Avenue. o The next day, July 20, 1993, Vince Foster died. o On that day, and during the subsequent investigation of Foster's death, the FBI had no director. o On August 9, 1993 the Bureau issued a two-page report on the Foster matter, on the basis of which it declined to become involved in the investigation. o It wasn't until September 1, 1993 that Sessions' successor, Judge Louis J. Freeh, took office. SWB believes that at this point, as to the urgency of dismissing Judge William S. Sessions--the only FBI director ever to be fired--it's clear what the rush was. http://www.ruddynews.com/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Petition Thank You Date: 06 Oct 1997 17:31:47 -0400 A new petition. >Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:59:57 -0400 >From: Gun Owners of America >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America >To: goamail@gunowners.org >Subject: Petition Thank You >X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] > >A Thank You Note To All WAGC/GOA Lautenberg Repeal Petition Signers > -- new petition drive necessary as Leadership remains stubborn > > > Gun Owners of America > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > (703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408, http://www.gunowners.org > Monday, October 6, 1997 > > > > GOA, on behalf of Women Against Gun Control, is sending this >e-mail message to all who signed the Lautenberg Repeal Petition as a >small way of saying thanks for helping get out the word. Rep. Helen >Chenoweth has received thousands of signatures in support of her bill >(H.R. 1009) to totally repeal the odious ban. This petition effort, >combined with the constant stream of phone calls, faxes, postcards, >and e-mail sent to Capitol Hill, has provided Rep. Chenoweth's >office with valuable ammunition as her staff seeks to gain >cosponsors for the bill. The cosponsor total stands at 33, a very >respectable number -- especially when one considers that lawmakers >recognize cosponsorship for the public declaration of support that >it is. > > There is a very good chance that H.R. 1009, if brought to the >floor, would pass. Many Members of Congress have reported that they >will vote favorably but prefer not to go so far as to cosponsor. >Others are saying that they have promised to support Rep. Bob Barr's >half-baked repeal effort, and as such would probably vote for >whichever bill makes it to the floor. > > Problem: No Pro-Gun Bills Are Being Allowed Out Of Committee! > > It's true. The Republican Leadership is ducking the issue of >gun freedoms as a matter of policy. This is especially frustrating >because the actions of gun owners led them to assume the majority in >the first place. President Clinton, in an astonishing moment of >honesty, admitted as much during a State of the Union address. In >his book "To Renew America", Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich >decries the fact that Clinton equates the Second Amendment to duck >hunting. Gingrich goes on to explain -- correctly -- that the Second >Amendment is about freedom. Add in the fact that Speaker Gingrich is >on record as stating that no more gun control would pass while he >held the gavel, and it is extremely disappointing that under his >watch we have seen the Kohl and Lautenberg bans become law while >pro-freedom initiatives never see the light of day. > > This must change, and Newt Gingrich has the power to effect that >change. He must be made to realize that the pro-gun constituency is >sick and tired of receiving lip service but no action. We know that >he is looking for ways to distinguish his party from the Democrats >in preparation for the 1998 elections. Anti-gunners were thrown out >of Congress en masse in 1994 -- Speaker Gingrich must be held >responsible for not recognizing that fact during the 105th >Congress. > > Please cut the following text and cross-post widely: > >******************************************************************** > > Gun Owners of America is organizing a petition drive directly >targeting Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for his refusal to >recognize the pro-gun constituency in the 105th Congress. He has >allowed some of the worst gun bans in recent history to become law >while blocking pro-gun legislation from receiving so much as a floor >vote. He must be held accountable. > > Petitions are available for signing online at >http://www.gunowners.org/petition.htm on the GOA website. This >program will allow everyone to view the names and comments of >signers, but will hide all personal information. Those who do not >have web access and wish to sign anyway may send an e-mail message >to goamail@gunowners.org -- please include a complete street >address. Or, fax your request to be added to GOA at 703-321-8408. >Copies circulated at gun shows and political rallies may be mailed >to GOA: 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151. > > The signed petitions will be hand-delivered to Gingrich's office >on the Hill after the turn of the new year in January, 1998. > > Please join us as we remind the Speaker of the importance of gun >rights in this country, and ask your friends to do so as well. >Without a large number of signers, the petition might be ignored. >Conversely, given that Gingrich is a huge fan of the Internet, and >knows that online persons are highly active, a successful petition >drive may have a greater-than-normal impact. > >******************************************************************** > > Final note to the Lautenberg petition signers: our information >indicates that a minority (but a sizeable one) of those who signed >the petition on GOA's website have not subscribed to our E-mail >Alert Network. This free service has been set up to keep you >informed in a timely manner on issues affecting your gun rights. The >volume of mail is quite small by contemporary list serve standards >-- five alerts in a week would be a very busy week indeed. If you >would like to be a part of the network, simply reply (the address is >goamail@gunowners.org if you are receiving this as a forward from >someone else) and indicate your state of residence. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Pigs, Part 1 Date: 06 Oct 1997 20:03:43 -0700 From The Idaho Observer, October edition: The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp by Steve Washam based on a telling by George Gordon Some years ago, about 1900, an old trapper from North Dakota hitched up some horses to his Studebaker wagon, packed a few possessions-- especially his traps--and drove south. Several weeks later he stopped in a small town just north of the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. It was a Saturday morning--a lazy day--when he walked into the general store. Sitting around the pot-bellied stove were seven or eight of the town’s local citizens. The traveler spoke, "Gentlemen, could you direct me to the Okefenokee Swamp?" Some of the oldtimers looked at him like he was crazy. "You must be a stranger in these parts," they said. "I am. I’m from North Dakota," said the stranger. "In the Okefenokee Swamp are thousands of wild hogs," one old man explained. "A man who goes into the swamp by himself asks to die!" He lifted up his leg. "I lost half my leg here, to the pigs of the swamp." Another old fellow said, "Look at the cuts on me; look at my arm bit off!" "Those pigs have been free since the Revolution, eating snakes and rooting out roots and fending for themselves for over a hundred years. They’re wild and they’re dangerous. You can’t trap them. No man dare go into the swamp by himself." Every man nodded his head in agreement. The old trapper said, "Thank you so much for the warning. Now could you direct me to the swamp?" They said, "Well, yeah, it’s due south--straight down the road." But they begged the stranger not to go, because they knew he’d meet a terrible fate. He said, "Sell me ten sacks of corn, and help me load them into the wagon." And they did. Then the old trapper bid them farewell and drove on down the road. The townsfolk thought they’d never see him again. Two weeks later the man came back. He pulled up to the general store, got down off the wagon, walked in and bought ten more sacks of corn. After loading it up he went back down the road toward the swamp. Two weeks later he returned and, again, bought ten sacks of corn. This went on for a month. And then two months, and three. Every week or two the old trapper would come into town on a Saturday morning, load up ten sacks of corn and drive off south into the swamp. The stranger soon became a legend in the little village and the subject of much speculation. People wondered what kind of devil had possessed this man, that he could go into the Okefenokee by himself and not be consumed by the wild and free hogs. One morning the man came into town as usual. Everyone thought he wanted more corn. He got off the wagon and went into the store where the usual group of men were gathered around the stove. He took off his gloves. "Gentlemen," he said, "I need to hire about ten or fifteen wagons. I need twenty or thirty men. I have six thousand hogs out in the swamp, penned up, and they’re all hungry. I’ve got to get them to market right away." "You’ve WHAT in the swamp?" asked the storekeeper, incredulously. "I have six thousand hogs penned up. They haven’t eaten for two or three days, and they’ll starve if I don’t get back there to feed and take care of them." One of the oldtimers said, "You mean you’ve captured the wild hogs of the Okefenokee?" "That’s right." "How did you do that? What did you do?" the men urged, breathlessly. One of them exclaimed, "But I lost my arm!" "I lost my brother!" cried another. "I lost my leg to those wild boars!" chimed a third. The trapper said, "Well, the first week I went in there they were wild all right. They hid in the undergrowth and wouldn’t come out. I dared not get off the wagon. So I spread corn along behind the wagon. Every day I’d spread a sack of corn. (continued)... - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Fundamentally Disparate Ideologies Date: 06 Oct 1997 20:10:56 -0700 From The Idaho Observer, October edition: Fundamentally Disparate Ideologies by Don Harkins Extreme liberals, most of whom believe that the laws of natural science run the show on earth, believe that people are born to be basically decent social creatures and that we are all just one more encounter session, just one more government program and just one more tax dollar away from gushing forth with all that innate decency for all to see. Conservatives, most of whom believe in the Bible and the teachings of Christ, believe that all people are born with a sinful nature and that the only way to be good is to struggle against their inherently sinful nature, with God's help, through lessons taught in the Bible. For the sake of discussion, let us lump all Americans into two categories: Conservatives and liberals. To further our sake of argument, let us agree that there are extreme conservatives and extreme liberals and that the bulk of society is comprised of more moderate citizens who tend to believe what they hear from the mouths of the the extremists within whose ideology they feel the most comfortable. There is a fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism as recognizeable from the philosophical platform espoused by the two disparate concepts: One philosophy demands that people share their wealth with others through the government so that the good people who have taken a left turn and gone bad can realize their goodness; the other philosophy demands that people be held accountable to their peers and to God for their actions. One philosophy demands that we all be responsible for our own behavior through our own free will as we will someday answer for our actions before God. The other philosophy makes us all socially and financially responsible for the actions of others and enslaves us to their ill behavior. The Bible tells us that people are sinners from birth and that on judgement day we are to be held accountable for our actions. The government tells us that people are good, then it taxes us some more to teach bad people to be good through some new government program. When was the last time the Bible lied to you? Can you remember the last time that the government did not lie to you? One philosophy leads to freedom on earth and eternal life in heaven. The other philosophy makes us slaves on earth to people who do not believe that there is a God, or a heaven. Don Harkins, Editor, The Idaho Observer altragee@dmi.net - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: "In The Eyes of A Child" Date: 06 Oct 1997 23:20:04 -0400 (EDT) "In the Eyes of A Child" was the Holy Communion hymn sung so beautifully yesterday at Sunday Mass as I held my ten year old daughter Kimberley close to me and watched with pride as my wife Jeanne carried out her duties as a new eucharistic minister. "In The Eyes of A Child" was a tribute to all kids who look at the world with innocent eyes and depend so heavily upon us, their fathers, mothers, grandparents, older brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles for love, guidance and patience as they learn and grow up to become responsible adults. Many other parents who sat nearby, tears welling up in their eyes without shame, also held their young sons and daughters a bit closer than usual as they struggled, just as my wife and I did, to make sense of the recent, shocking murder of ten year old Jeffrey Curley, a bike-riding, smiling, baseball-tossing, happy-go-lucky kid who was the pride of his parents, his older brothers and of his entire neighborhood in East Cambridge, Massachusetts. Folks, pure evil descended on East Cambridge last week. Words fail me to describe what happened to Jeffrey, so I will quote from the 10/05/97 BOSTON SUNDAY HERALD to make Sarah Brady and Bob Walker at HCI, their supporters in Congress and the frat brothers running The White House comprehend that deranged criminals do not need a gun to tear the hearts out of a family, out of a community, out of all New Englanders. Read the following graphic words only if you are prepared to be both stunned and horrified: "Police contend 21 year old Salvatore 'Salvi' Sicardi, a Curley family neighbor who has a history of violent offenses, and 22 year old Charles Jaynes of Brockton, smothered the boy with a gasoline-soaked rag in Newton, raped his lifeless body in a Manchester, N.H., apartment and dumped him in either New Hampshire's Piscataqua River or Maine's York River. Prosecutors said Sicardi confessed to his role in the murder, insisting Jaynes was the killer. The two men allegedly plotted the abduction for weeks, stealing the Little Leaguer's bicycle and then luring him into Jaynes' blue Cadillac on Wednesday with the promise of a new bicycle." Sickening and perverse? Such words are far too kind to describe such brutal amorality. No punishment could be too severe for the animals that took Jeffrey's life. Of course, that's just my personal opinion. As exhausted divers from a variety of law enforcement agencies continue to search waterways along the New Hampshire - Maine border in a no holds barred effort to locate Jeffrey's body, I have to wonder why Sarah Brady and Bob Walker and their allies are not flying up north to denounce this unspeakable crime and to demand that sadistic pedophiles who stalk and murder innocent young children be held accountable, swiftly and severely, in a court of law, and then perhaps be turned loose into the general exercise yard of a maximum security prison to be met and greeted by a different, up close and personal kind of Welcome Wagon. Oh, that's right. Now I get it. Bob Walker of HCI was doing the radio shows recently in New Hampshire and Vermont when a man used a * rifle * to murder two state troopers, a judge and a newspaper editor. At the time, Bob Walker's focus was almost entirely on the * gun * used and not on the victims, their families or friends. Hey, that's what HCI must call "keeping the focus" on demonizing the gun and not the "poor" criminal. And the crime victim or victims? Merely convenient, temporary political props used primarily to advance HCI's freedom-fearing agenda. Harsh words. Yes. But true words, just the same. But what about little Jeffrey Curley, stalked, kidnapped, suffocated, assaulted, entombed in a concrete-filled tupperware tub, and tossed into a salt water estuary? No, Jeffrey merited no tears shed at HCI, no Sarah Brady "If Just One Life Can Be Saved" national press conference, no anguished Schumerian call for "reasonable gun control", no "Bill Clinton Biting His Lower Lip" Rose Garden press conference at which, railing against "assault weapons", Super Bill would be surrounded by scores of white-glove-wearing, scowling, anti-gun bleacher cops who would not know a real street cop if they were to meet one. No, Jeffrey's crazed killers did not use a gun to end his precious life, therefore, don't hold your breath waiting for Sarah Brady or Bob Walker of HCI or their allies to do the radio and TV talk show circuit in New England again to talk about the senselessness of Jeffrey's death at the hands of two walking demons. I am not holding mine. HCI could not care less about crime victims. Fomenting fear of guns, gun owners and freedom is their only game. Investigators reportedly found literature from NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Organization) in one of the kidnapper's motor vehicles, NAMBLA, a Clintony "commonly grounded", "diverse" group of adult males which advocates sexual contact between adult males and young boys, a "misunderstood" pack of Mother Teresa's followers? NOT! But, what the heck, since the two monsters who lured Jeffrey away from his family and took his life neither quoted from the Constitution, nor mentioned concerns about their right to keep and bear arms, nor were in possession of any firearms when arrested, oh well, there's just no political hay to be made by HCI over Jeffrey's brutal murder. You see, NAMBLA is not a "right wing militia" promoting what Sarah Brady calls the "gun culture", so HCI cannot readily refer to Jeffrey's murderers as "domestic extremists", thus Sarah Brady and Bob Walker can choose to just ignore this crime and sit back to wait for the next major league criminal incident in which a semi-automatic firearm is misused to occur somewhere in the U.S.A. In a way quite different from the Red Cross, HCI lives for blood. Were gun-toting criminals to be driven out of business, HCI would go out of business, or come darn close to it. Think about that comment for a moment. HCI depends on violent criminals to keep killing unarmed victims to assure its very survival as an organization. Hmmm. Make that a double hmmm. Now, back to the tragic story at hand. So, now I've got the picture. 10-4. Message received and understood. A ten year old boy can be plucked from the safety of his loving parents' arms and neighborhood by barbaric, amoral pedophiles, smothered to death and sexually assaulted in a manner too horrific to describe, and then tossed like a piece of worthless trash into a salt water tidal river ... and HCI will just keep on squawking to the media about the pending lawful importation from Israel of Uzi carbines and Galil rifles which have been modified to meet the letter of the (silly) law as spelled out in the so-called Crime Bill of 1994. Priorities, priorities, priorities. When one works for HCI, what is young Jeffrey Curley's life worth, since he was not slain by a gun-wielding maniac or another child who had gained access to an unsecured, loaded gun? Apparently, not too much, given the lack of HCI presence and press releases to condemn this atrocious crime of homicide too terrible for any rational man or woman to conceive. While devastated residents of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine grieve over the wrenching loss of Jeffrey, an innocent youngster, to two savage predators and vow to reform a totally dysfunctional criminal justice system, Sarah Brady, Bob Walker and their HCI supporters instead gnash their teeth over law abiding citizens owning semi-automatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. How ironic. And how sad. Instead of assaulting the rights of responsible gun owners, Sarah Brady, Bob Walker and their supporters should be lighting candles in memory of Jeffrey Curley and supporting imposition of certain capital punishment against Jeffrey's killers, even if federal charges have to be brought to make that happen. (Note: Massachusetts has no death penalty, except for unarmed residents who are violent crime victims and who have been denied licenses to carry firearms at the whim of anti-gun local chiefs of police.) Remember well Jeffrey Curley's name, honoring his heartbroken father's request. Do not forget who he was or what joy he brought to the lives of all around him. Let Jeffrey Curley never become some cold statistic on an HCI bulletin board. Let Jeffrey Curley's name become a rallying cry for all law abiding Americans, especially for those of us who are parents, to refocus society's attention on the sheer evil perpetrated by pedophiles who may not carry guns so reviled by HCI, but whose depraved actions merit wholesale, unabashed condemnation. (Jeffrey, we all know what this world should look like "in the eyes of a child", and we will work hard to insure that the world from which you were taken so suddenly and so tragically becomes a safer place for all of your friends to live in. May God keep you safe in His world where nobody can hurt you anymore. We will pray for your parents, your brothers and your friends until one fine day when you will all meet again.) Just Another Devoted Dad Who Loves His Kids, Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 07 Oct 1997 18:20:31 -0700 > >(Note from an AOL member: I don't think that this could wait....If this is true....They have went way out of bounds. Patti) > > >From a former AOL employee: > >I'll try and cut through the crap, and try to get to the point of this letter. I used to work for America Online, and would like to remain anonymous for that reason. I was laid off in early September, but I know exactly why I was laid off, which I will now explain: > >Since last December, I had been one of the many people assigned to design AOL 4.0 for Windows (AOL 4.0 beta, codenamed Casablanca). In the beginning, I was very proud of this task, until I found out the true cost of it. Things were going fine until about mid-February, when me and 2 of my colleagues started to suspect a problem, an unexplainable 'Privacy Invasion', with the new version. One of them, who is a master programmer, copied the finished portion of the new version (Then 'Build >52'), and took it home, and we spent nearly 2 weeks of sleepless nights examining and debugging the program, flipping it inside-out, and here is what we found. > >Unlike all previous versions of America Online, version 4.0 puts something in your hard drive called a 'cookie'. (AOL members click here for a definition). However, the cookie we found on Version 4.0 was far more treacherous than the simple internet cookie. How would you like somebody looking at your entire hard drive, snooping through any (yes, any) piece of information on your hard drive. It could also read your password and log in information and store it deep in the program code. Well, all previous versions, whether you like it or not, have done this to a certain extent, but only with files you downloaded. As me and my colleagues discovered, with the new version, anytime you are signed on to AOL, any top aol executive, any aol worker, who has been sworn to secrecy regarding this feature, can go into your hard drive and retrieve any piece of information that they so desire. Billing, download records, e-mail, directories, personal documents, programs, financial information, scanned images, etc ... Better start keeping all those pictures on a floppy disk! > >This is a totally disgusting violation of our rights, and your right to know as well. Since this is undoubtably 'Top Secret' information that I am revealing, my life at AOL is pretty much over. After discovering this information, we started to inform a few other workers at America Online, so that we could get a large enough crew to stop this from happening to the millions of unfortunate and unsuspecting America Online >members. This was in early August. One month later, all three of us were unemployed. We got together, and figured there was something we had to do to let the public know. > >Unemployed, with one of us going through a divorce (me) and another who is about to undergo treatment for Cancer, our combined financial situation is not currently enough to release any sort or article. We attepted to create a web page on three different servers containing in-depth information on AOL 4.0, but all three were taken down within 2 days. We were running very low on time (4.0 is released early this >winter), so we figured our last hope to reveal this madness before it effects the people was starting something similar to a chain letter, this letter you are reading. Please do the following, to help us expose AOL for who they really are, and to help us and yourself recieve personal gratification for taking a stand for our freedom: > >1. Forward this letter to as many people as you can (not just friends and family, as many as you can!) > >2. Tell people who aren't on America Online in person, especially important people (Private Investigators, Government workers, City Council) > >3. If the information about the new version isn't exposed by the time aol is released early this winter, for your own protection, DON'T DOWNLOAD AOL 4.0 UNDER ANY CONDITION !!! > >Thank you for reading and examining this information. Me and my colleagues hope that you will help us do the right thing in this situation. Enjoy America Online (just kidding!). > >Regards, >A former AOL employee - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 07 Oct 1997 21:44:34 -0400 At 06:20 PM 10/7/97 -0700, you wrote: > >> >>(Note from an AOL member: I don't think that this could wait....If this is >true....They have went way out of bounds. Patti) >> >> >>From a former AOL employee: >> >>I'll try and cut through the crap, and try to get to the point of this >letter. This is just what I'd expect from those socialist wackos at aol. Nothing is sacred to them, other than their own meddling in others affairs. The ONLY reason I stay with those traitors is the weekly G.U.N.S. meeting on sunday nights. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 07 Oct 1997 19:03:19 PDT roc@mail.xmission.com wrote : >At 06:20 PM 10/7/97 -0700, you wrote: >> >>> >>>(Note from an AOL member: I don't think that this could wait....If this is >>true....They have went way out of bounds. Patti) >>> >>> >>>From a former AOL employee: >>> >>>I'll try and cut through the crap, and try to get to the point of this >>letter. > >This is just what I'd expect from those socialist wackos at aol. Nothing is >sacred to them, other than their own meddling in others affairs. The ONLY >reason I stay with those traitors is the weekly G.U.N.S. meeting on sunday >nights. > >Tom I think a more accurate explanation is that AOL has put itself in the position of selling more or less unlimited service at way below cost as a way of presenting all its customers to advertisers in every way possible. While if asked most of its customers would say that they want to send E-mail and surf the web AND NEVER SEE AN AD. I have no idea where this will end up....but I suspect most people would do much better for themselves to get internet services from ISPs that do not expect to make the losses up on Advertisements Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Numbers Fun from WorldNetDaily Date: 07 Oct 1997 21:56:51 -0700 From the good folks at http://www.worldnetdaily.com - Step 1: pick a number from one to seven. Step 2: Multiply the number by two. Step 3: Add five. Step 4: Multiply by 50. Step 5: If you have already had your birthday this year, add 1747. If you haven’t add 1746. Step 6: Subtract the four-digit year in which you were born. When you’re finished, if the arithmetic was performed flawlessly, you will have a three-digit number. The first digit is the original number picked. The second two digits are your age. Amazing, eh? - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: Date: 08 Oct 1997 07:11:22 -0400 >From: Petals9706@aol.com >Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:49:26 -0400 (EDT) >To: Petals9706@aol.com >Subject: Fwd: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: Radioactive Met... > > Get aload of this Everyone...... Wheeeeeeeeeew....... they are going to get >rid of us one way or another........ :o( Denice > Guns and Government Network >News... >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >Subj: Fwd: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: >Radioactive Met... >Date: 97-10-07 22:13:11 EDT >From: ElmerFud27 >To: Petals9706 > >:-I >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >Subj: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: Radioactive >Metals from >Date: 97-10-07 14:02:07 EDT >From: AOL News > > WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Nuclear Information and >Resource Service today issued the following statement: The United States >government has entered into a precedent-setting contract that will convert >radioactive machinery from nuclear bomb factories into everyday items that >will expose the public, unknowingly and repeatedly, to radiation. The result >will be radioactive frying pans, computers, zippers, dental braces on your >kids' teeth, belt buckles, jewelry, and tableware. > The Department of Energy (DOE) has just signed on to a contract >with BNFL, >Inc., a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (UK), that finances the >decommissioning of three uranium factories by selling the radioactively >contaminated metal to the marketplace. As of the signing of the contract, >title to the federally-owned radioactive metal waste from enrichment of >uranium for nuclear reactors, was shifted to BNFL to treat and sell. > The DOE and BNFL deal is the first of many to decommission parts >from the >immense bomb complex. The sole-source, noncompetitive contract, signed in >late August 1997, for work at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee nuclear reservation >will result in the release of an estimated 112,000 tons of radioactive >nickel, >copper, aluminum and steel scrap into commerce in the US and abroad. The >company was selected without competition apparently with the blessing of Vice >President Al Gore, despite at least one available alternative proposal that >would have cost the US government $100 million less and possibly provided >greater environmental protection. > Once stripped from the radioactive buildings, the radioactive metal >will >be transported to privately owned, state-licensed companies who will process >and sell it on the open market. The scrap could be used for cars, I-beams of >buildings, anything made with steel or stainless steel. BNFL already has a >contract with a company, Ovonics, that makes nickel metal hydride batteries >which could end up in items such as scooters, cars, computers and toys. > "This contract is the tip of the iceberg -- a horrifying, >precedent- >setting contract to spread radioactivity from nuclear weapons production into >our daily lives," stated Diane D'Arrigo of Nuclear Information and Resource >Service, a Washington-based public interest group. "And there will be more >to >follow at Oak Ridge, other atomic weapons sites and from nuclear power >reactors from repairs and closures." > In the greater policy realm, US Environmental Protection Agency >(EPA) and >US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are in various stages of codifying >regulations to legalize the release of radioactive metal and other materials >so they are completely free from regulation. This is despite the public's >consistent previous objections to such dangerous, irreversible policies. EPA >is in the process of developing standards to justify releasing radioactivity >for use in everyday items. The NRC has already finalized a rule setting >allowable radioactive levels for closed buildings and property. > BNFL will be subcontracting with a metal smelter, Manufacturing >Sciences >Corporation (MSC) licensed by the State of Tennessee. Tennessee regulators >will determine the levels of radiation permitted in nationwide commerce, >effectively setting a defacto national standard. > "The Government regulators are completely selling out and setting >the >stage for irreversible contamination of the planet. We made a big mistake >creating this mess. There is absolutely no justification for spreading >radioactive metals around and letting a few sloppy nuclear companies make a >bundle out of the scrubbing, smelting and selling it in the open market," >charged D'Arrigo. > "Unwitting consumers are subsidizing decommissioning costs as hunks >of >radioactive machinery and metal shielding are transformed into computers, >spoons and swingsets," D'Arrigo commented. > Once out into general use, the radioactive metal can be resmelted >over and >over, disseminating radioactivity and multiplying exposures to the public and >workers in any encounter with metal objects. There will be no protection of >the public, no warning, no notification, no verification of individual and >multiple exposures. > The Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers union (OCAW) sued to halt the >project >on August 22. They charge that DOE violated National Environmental Policy >Act >by failing to conduct a formal Environmental Impact Statement on the project, >which precluded any analysis of the impact of selling radioactive metals into >commerce and never considered whether there were more environmentally sound >technologies to decontaminate metal. The suit also charges that DOE violated >Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act which requires >displaced nuclear workers to be retrained and hired to clean up the thousands >of contaminated nuclear sites scattered throughout the United States. >Finally, the lawsuit charges the DOE-financed Community Reuse Organization of >Tennessee (CROET) failed to provide retraining and hiring preference to laid- >off nuclear workers, as mandated by law. > BNFL, the prime contractor of the Oak Ridge metals deal, has a long >dirty >history of radioactive pollution in the United Kingdom including turning the >Irish Sea into one of the most radioactively contaminated bodies of water on >the face of the Earth. > "Neither DOE nor the State of Tennessee should allow radioactively >contaminated materials into everyday commerce," said OCAW International >President Robert Wages when the OCAW suit was announced. "Children should >not >be subjected to radioactive contamination from metals mined out of nuclear >weapons plants when they receive toys or are fitted for orthodontic braces. >Especially when the justification is to merely enhance the profits of a >company seeking to cash in on a lucrative government contract," Wages >concluded. > CO: Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Oil, Chemical and Atomic > Workers Union > ST: District of Columbia, Tennessee > IN: ENV > SU: > >To edit your profile, go to keyword NewsProfiles. >For all of today's news, go to keyword News. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [RightNow] STOP S. 507 -- The Omnibus Patent Act of 1997 (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1997 08:39:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: RightNow@MailList.Net ALERT October 7, 1997 STOP S. 507 The Omnibus Patent Act of 1997 Nobel Laureates Denounce Hatch's Patent Bill A group of 26 Nobel Laureates in economics, physics, chemistry and medicine signed a joint letter in September denouncing S. 507, Senator Hatch's Omnibus Patent bill. The open letter to the Senate begins unequivocally, "We urge the Senate to oppose the passage of the pending U.S. Senate bill 507." Their reason? "It will prove very damaging to American small inventors and thereby discourage the flow of new inventions that have contributed so much to America's superior performance in the advancement of science and technology." If anyone understands the importance of innovation and creativity to the unparalleled American achievements, it is the Nobel Laureates such as economists Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson. They stated flatly that, "S. 507 could result in lasting harm to the United States and the world." Our Founding Fathers created the constitutional right of inventors to the "exclusive" ownership of their creations as a democratic right, available to every citizen. This uniquely American system is responsible for the fact that the U.S. has produced 95 percent of the world's inventions. But envious foreigners want to steal American inventions, and S. 507 -- the basic terms of which were hatched in a 1994 deal between the late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and the Japanese Ambassador -- will give them the tools to do just that! Senator Hatch has tried to mollify critics of S. 507 by amending it, but the bill is so bad that no amendments can make it acceptable. S. 507 would open up all existing patents to reexamination, and it would put the Patent Office under a board of directors dominated by representatives of the multinational corporations. It is noteworthy that S. 507's sponsor, Orrin Hatch, is pushing another proposal to extend the term of songwriters' copyright protection from 50 to 70 years beyond the author's life. Hatch has a personal interest in that bill; he holds the copyright on a compact disc of religious songs he wrote. So Senator Hatch wants to protect the property rights of songwriters for 70 years, but strip away the rights of inventors only 18 months after their patent applications are filed, whether or not the patent is ever granted! STATUS OF S. 507: In May, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 507. Under Senate rules, it could be brought to the Senate floor for a vote at any time. We have no reliable information on when a vote might be scheduled. ACTION: We must actively continue the fight against S. 507. Contact your two Senators and Majority Leader Trent Lott and tell them to vote NO on S. 507. Remember, this is not a partisan issue, but a fight between the large multinational corporation "Goliaths" and the small, independent inventor "Davids." The message must be repeated again and again: NO on S. 507! Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 or 800-522-6721 Senate E-mail list can be found at: http://www.eagleforum.org/conglet/1997/senate_email.html Eagle Forum http://www.eagleforum.org PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org Alton, IL 62002 618-462-5415 To subscribe please e-mail eagle@eagleforum.org with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk@wrq.com Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 08 Oct 1997 09:26:22 -0700 Cookies are absolutely ubiquitous in web browsers. I do not believe it's possible for AOL to have built a browser to rev 4 without that ability. Certainly no -other- browser doesn't use cookies (and, actually it's a function of the web server, the browser simply recieves cookies and stores them). If you want more real information Do a web search on "cookie cruncher" wich is a PD app to delete cookies. Or check the HTTP cookie open standard yourself at: http://home.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html Using Netscape, you can also make cookies ask permission. > For Netscape Navigator 3.0: > > 1. Select "Options" > 2. Select "Network Preferences" > 3. Select "Protocols" (this excerpted from work email that went around about a yr ago) There have been serious errors in older versions of Internet explorer. One or two of these bugs (another thing that is completely rampant and expected in the software industry) allowed non standard access to the hard drive including in one case (I think, & I'll deny I ever typed this if any of you is a microsoft lawyer) access to the encrypted NT password file. Feh! ya use microsoft software ya get such "features". As pro Liberty folk, I believe we face -serious- challenges. If we expend all our energy chasing problems that are not -really- problems we'll be spent out when(/if) our real trouble starts. -Boyd (PS Cookies are used to track how often you access someones site, not national security material, but that's why I normally reject them.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk@wrq.com Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 08 Oct 1997 09:31:30 -0700 Here is the software referred to in my prev. msg: http://www.thelimitsoft.com/cookie.html It's actaully not Public Domain but the page describes the reality behind cookies quite well and the software should be worth money to you if you use it. -Boyd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [RightNow] Unidentified subject! (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1997 13:15:44 -0500 (CDT) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD3EF.675501C0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: "'rightnow@rightnow.org'" Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: RightNow@MailList.Net ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD3EF.675501C0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; NAME="Pers98.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: Content-Description: Perspectives Column from Oct. 8th issue of Wednesday on the Web = (http://www.pacg.com/pvbr/) By Phil Brennan=20 THE ROAD TO IMPEACHMENT=20 No president in our history has been as corrupt as the present occupant = of the White House. The man is an unmitgated scoundrel who has done, and = continues to do, grevious harm the this Republic.=20 No president in our history was more deserving of being run out of = office more than is William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Had he been a = mayor in some 19th century western town he would have been tarred and = feathered and run out of town on a rail in short order. As a matter of = fact, with his record of draft dodging and serial philandering, he'd = never have got elected mayor in the first place. Folks in those days had = the now qaint idea that character does indeed count. A lot.=20 Well, we can't tar and feather him (the tar probably wouldn't stick = anyway and it's a grevious environmental offense to use bird feathers = for any purpose in this enlightened age when it's OK to kill unborn = babies but a federal crime to steal eagle's eggs). So the best we can = hope for is to impeach him, and I'm going to take it upon myself to tell = the honorables in the United States Congress exactly how to go about = bringing that much desired event to fruition before his term runs out = and he leaves office to take over the UN.=20 For too long a time, the sleazester and his criminal co-conspirators in = the White House have been able to fend off Ken Starr and various = congressional investigators, using every con man's trick in the books to = dodge and weave and, in general, obstruct the very dickens out of = justice.=20 That will continue, and expecting to collar Slick Willie by rummaging = through White House documents (when they can be found), or hoping to = bring him to heel through the testimony of some of his cronies simply = won't wash.=20 The documents that could convict him have long since been shredded, just = like the papers in Vincent Foster's office at the Rose Law Firm in = Little Rock, and his cronies simply won't talk because they know what = will happen to them if they do. And if they get in legal trouble for = stonewalling, they can look forward to an eventual presidential pardon = as a reward for keeping their mouths shut.=20 So how do you nail Slick Willie?=20 I have to thank one of Rush Limbaugh's listeners for giving me the idea = of what needs to be done to set off impeachment proceedings. His = suggestion to the Thompson committee: call in all those White House = guests shown in the infamous video tapes of those infamous White House = coffee klatches, put them under oath and grill them about what pitches = for funds were made to them once the cameras had left the room.=20 Good enough, but I'll go him one better.=20 Get the list of attendees, subpoena them, find out how much they = contributed to the Clinton-Gore campaign, and then examine their = business records to see what, if anything, they got in the way of return = -- and I don't mean invitations to coffees or nights in the Lincoln = bedroom.=20 I am willing to bet that a lot of them got what they wanted, whether it = was juicy government contracts, or relief from some burdensome federal = regulation or whatever else the Slickster has within his power to grant. = And I'm also willing to bet that once the coffee klatchers were put on = the spot they would sing like canaries. Granting such largesse in return for bucks is grounds for impeachment, = pure and simple. It's one of those high crimes and misdemeanors the = Constitution frowns upon.=20 There, isn't that easy? =20 Go do it. Now!=20 =20 Also on this week's issue of Wednesday on the Web: Cover Story-a special = report on Medicare Fraud from Citizens Against Government Waste; Armed & = Dangerous, Part five -- Feds Hiring Foreign Cops?; What They're teaching = on US campuses -- a shocking YAF report: The,105th Congress - Dancing to = the tune of Hey, Big Spender;Dispelling Enviromyths; The Ford Foundation = -Making US campuses safe for diversity; Should Marijuana be legalized = for medical use? -- Some thoughtful observations from the Cato = Institute; Herbal cancer remedies, Part 2, and lots, lots more. NOTE: = Full text of our 8-part Globalwarming or Globaloney report still = available by e-mail from pvbr@gate.net ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCD3EF.675501C0-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Caveat emptor, Waco the rules of engagement video tapes Date: 08 Oct 1997 16:12:09 -0500 (CDT) 10-8-97 EDITORIAL: Caveat Emptor, Buyer Beware: VHS Video tapes of "Waco the rules of engagement". There are at least 3 video tapes for sell that I know of. All of them are of questionable sources. I am not sure if any are "legal". I plan on letting the dust settle. But, because I made a e-mail blather last week and stuck my foot in my mouth here is a summary of what I have read: I think it is really a paradox that the so called patriotic Americans who are so upset about the many abuses of the Constitution and State laws by our Governments are ready to break laws for their own needs. This might speak loudly about our whole sorry state of affairs. How can a people with little ethics or values expect the government to act on a higher or better moral standard? Regards, Paul Watson end WACO: the Rules of Engagement NOW on VIDEO [well see how long this lasts] ========================================================================= Get this tape, WACO the Rules of Engagement WHILE you can... My understanding is that the "powers that be" are attempting to put an injunction on the sale of this tape via lawsuits yada yada yada... This passed onto me via: Send cash check or money order to COPS, 1001- A East Harmony Rd. #353, Ft. Collins, Co. 80525, or Credit card # by fax at (970) 472 - 9049 or at this E mail address. $30.00 + $5.00 S&H Regards, MM More on this film at: http://www.waco93.com This tape may or may not be authorized by ALL parties [hence the lawsuits?] so please contact cops555@aol.com for details FIRST ! Friends, A good friend just forwarded information on ordering a copy of Waco: Rules of Engagement. Quite a value for $24.95 + postage (800-205-6245). Regards, Today, Monday, 10-06-1997, Ted Gunderson shortwave program, was a commercial to buy the "Waco Rules Of Engagement" video for $24.95 + $4.00 shipping = $28.95 total, from the American Freedom Network at 1-800-205-6245. I called, ordered, and was told it would be shipped tomorrow. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Begin post.. I'm only sending this to my private list and ask that if you forward it on, that you only do so by word-of-mouth or on private mail lists that you control and know the members of. Please no forwarding to newsgroups or other general mail lists. That being said, here's the scoop. An acquaintance acquired a copy of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" that he's wants to distribute to those who are unable to see it any other way. It's a 'press release' copy and so there is a small banner on the bottom of the screen that reads, "Press viewing only not for private use" but other than that, the copy is OK. It's full length at 136 minutes. A 70 year old patriot friend of mine is broke but will mail copies out priority for anyone who sends him at least $15. The more you send him the more "extra's" he'll include with your video. He is a wealth of information and has tons of files on everything you could imagine. Here's his name and address: Bill Lyford 8259 N.W. Mississippi Blvd. Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433 If you want to see this video NOW - here is your opportunity.. it's supposed to come out on video "later this fall," but that is yet to be seen, and will likely be cut so that it fits neatly on a T-120 videotape. There's no telling how long Bill will distribute these so time is of the essence. DISCLAIMER - I MAKE NO REMUNERATION FROM BILL LYFORD IN ANY WAY. THIS POST IS STRICTLY FOR THE ENLIGHTNMENT OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. End post. PRIVATE ------------- Dear Paul: Regarding: >Subject: : Ordering Waco-The Rules of Engagment] Yeah. I know. It's all over the net. I understand from Gifford that the version being sold by McNulty is *NOT* the same as the version reviewed by Roger Ebert, et al. This is gonna get messy. I hate this kind of conflict. It is so unnecessary. But one thing is for sure: there are obviously some so-called patriots out there who don't have the slightest regard for the law, for copyright ownership, or for distribution licensing rights. They'll compromise the "right thing to do" for the sake of "getting what they want now." And that's a dangerous compromise to make. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Fwd: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: Radioactive Met... Date: 08 Oct 1997 17:22:38 -0400 (EDT) By odd coincidence, I recently happened to hear a talk by the "Molten Metals Recyclers" flack Val Loessette. Actually, it's not fair to call Val a flack, he's an experienced engineer, not a wet-behind-the-ears PR guy. According to my understanding of Val's remarks, the plan is to melt down (primarily) structural steel from the old K-25 uranium enrichment plant. At worst, this steel would be trivially contaminated with uranium and related daughter products. Some, perhaps most, of this may be used to make radwaste shipping containers. No harm in shipping radioactive waste in containers made of trivially contaminated steel. Really clean recycled ingots might be sold to steelmakers. I believe the EPA gets to define what "really clean" means. I'm not a big EPA booster but I've never heard anybody accuse them of being insufficiently conservative. So I think people would be better off worrying about other things. Brad On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Tom Cloyes wrote: > >From: Petals9706@aol.com > >Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:49:26 -0400 (EDT) > >To: Petals9706@aol.com > >Subject: Fwd: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: > Radioactive Met... > > > > Get aload of this Everyone...... Wheeeeeeeeeew....... they are going to get > >rid of us one way or another........ :o( Denice > > Guns and Government Network > >News... > >--------------------- > >Forwarded message: > >Subj: Fwd: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: > >Radioactive Met... > >Date: 97-10-07 22:13:11 EDT > >From: ElmerFud27 > >To: Petals9706 > > > >:-I > >--------------------- > >Forwarded message: > >Subj: Nuclear Information and Resource Service Issues Warning: Radioactive > >Metals from > >Date: 97-10-07 14:02:07 EDT > >From: AOL News > > > > WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Nuclear Information and > >Resource Service today issued the following statement: The United States > >government has entered into a precedent-setting contract that will convert > >radioactive machinery from nuclear bomb factories into everyday items that > >will expose the public, unknowingly and repeatedly, to radiation. The result > >will be radioactive frying pans, computers, zippers, dental braces on your > >kids' teeth, belt buckles, jewelry, and tableware. > > The Department of Energy (DOE) has just signed on to a contract > >with BNFL, > >Inc., a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (UK), that finances the > >decommissioning of three uranium factories by selling the radioactively > >contaminated metal to the marketplace. As of the signing of the contract, > >title to the federally-owned radioactive metal waste from enrichment of > >uranium for nuclear reactors, was shifted to BNFL to treat and sell. > > The DOE and BNFL deal is the first of many to decommission parts > >from the > >immense bomb complex. The sole-source, noncompetitive contract, signed in > >late August 1997, for work at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee nuclear reservation > >will result in the release of an estimated 112,000 tons of radioactive > >nickel, > >copper, aluminum and steel scrap into commerce in the US and abroad. The > >company was selected without competition apparently with the blessing of Vice > >President Al Gore, despite at least one available alternative proposal that > >would have cost the US government $100 million less and possibly provided > >greater environmental protection. > > Once stripped from the radioactive buildings, the radioactive metal > >will > >be transported to privately owned, state-licensed companies who will process > >and sell it on the open market. The scrap could be used for cars, I-beams of > >buildings, anything made with steel or stainless steel. BNFL already has a > >contract with a company, Ovonics, that makes nickel metal hydride batteries > >which could end up in items such as scooters, cars, computers and toys. > > "This contract is the tip of the iceberg -- a horrifying, > >precedent- > >setting contract to spread radioactivity from nuclear weapons production into > >our daily lives," stated Diane D'Arrigo of Nuclear Information and Resource > >Service, a Washington-based public interest group. "And there will be more > >to > >follow at Oak Ridge, other atomic weapons sites and from nuclear power > >reactors from repairs and closures." > > In the greater policy realm, US Environmental Protection Agency > >(EPA) and > >US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are in various stages of codifying > >regulations to legalize the release of radioactive metal and other materials > >so they are completely free from regulation. This is despite the public's > >consistent previous objections to such dangerous, irreversible policies. EPA > >is in the process of developing standards to justify releasing radioactivity > >for use in everyday items. The NRC has already finalized a rule setting > >allowable radioactive levels for closed buildings and property. > > BNFL will be subcontracting with a metal smelter, Manufacturing > >Sciences > >Corporation (MSC) licensed by the State of Tennessee. Tennessee regulators > >will determine the levels of radiation permitted in nationwide commerce, > >effectively setting a defacto national standard. > > "The Government regulators are completely selling out and setting > >the > >stage for irreversible contamination of the planet. We made a big mistake > >creating this mess. There is absolutely no justification for spreading > >radioactive metals around and letting a few sloppy nuclear companies make a > >bundle out of the scrubbing, smelting and selling it in the open market," > >charged D'Arrigo. > > "Unwitting consumers are subsidizing decommissioning costs as hunks > >of > >radioactive machinery and metal shielding are transformed into computers, > >spoons and swingsets," D'Arrigo commented. > > Once out into general use, the radioactive metal can be resmelted > >over and > >over, disseminating radioactivity and multiplying exposures to the public and > >workers in any encounter with metal objects. There will be no protection of > >the public, no warning, no notification, no verification of individual and > >multiple exposures. > > The Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers union (OCAW) sued to halt the > >project > >on August 22. They charge that DOE violated National Environmental Policy > >Act > >by failing to conduct a formal Environmental Impact Statement on the project, > >which precluded any analysis of the impact of selling radioactive metals into > >commerce and never considered whether there were more environmentally sound > >technologies to decontaminate metal. The suit also charges that DOE violated > >Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act which requires > >displaced nuclear workers to be retrained and hired to clean up the thousands > >of contaminated nuclear sites scattered throughout the United States. > >Finally, the lawsuit charges the DOE-financed Community Reuse Organization of > >Tennessee (CROET) failed to provide retraining and hiring preference to laid- > >off nuclear workers, as mandated by law. > > BNFL, the prime contractor of the Oak Ridge metals deal, has a long > >dirty > >history of radioactive pollution in the United Kingdom including turning the > >Irish Sea into one of the most radioactively contaminated bodies of water on > >the face of the Earth. > > "Neither DOE nor the State of Tennessee should allow radioactively > >contaminated materials into everyday commerce," said OCAW International > >President Robert Wages when the OCAW suit was announced. "Children should > >not > >be subjected to radioactive contamination from metals mined out of nuclear > >weapons plants when they receive toys or are fitted for orthodontic braces. > >Especially when the justification is to merely enhance the profits of a > >company seeking to cash in on a lucrative government contract," Wages > >concluded. > > CO: Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Oil, Chemical and Atomic > > Workers Union > > ST: District of Columbia, Tennessee > > IN: ENV > > SU: > > > >To edit your profile, go to keyword NewsProfiles. > >For all of today's news, go to keyword News. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Tar & Feathers Date: 09 Oct 1997 10:41:57 -0700 From next month's Idaho Observer, a coupla weeks early... Tar and Feathers by Jefferson Adams Many years ago, in a more reasonable and less technological time, folks by and large knew the difference between right and wrong. Not only that, they had a tendency to live by moral standards that today are considered by many to be quaint and outdated. It was a time when men married women, when people who stole things were tried and hung, and, around the time of the American colonies’ War for Independence, it was a time where people who strongly disagreed with the idea of freedom from an oppressive government were likely to find themselves out on the edge of town being tarred and feathered for their support of what was essentially becoming a police state. It occurs to me that today we’re so far beyond what the founders considered "oppresive" that it pretty much boggles the mind that we tolerate it. The American people of 200+ years ago wouldn’t have put up with our current state of affairs, for long, and they had some interesting ways of dealing with individuals who stepped over the line. As I write this, a woman named Shirley Allen is into her second week of being surrounded at her farm house by armed state police officers who shot CS tear gas into her house at one point (yes, that’s CS - the stuff that our military is forbidden to use in war, the stuff that the FBI poured into the church at Waco by the 55-gallon drum full and which no doubt suffocated many of the children and probably was responsible for the fire that eventuall killed most of the up-til-then-survivors). At another point, Illinois’ finest coaxed Shirley out of her house and then blasted her several times in the chest with a shotgun which was loaded with metal "beanbag" rounds designed to knock down but not seriously injure their target. Shirley’s crime? Well, um, actually there isn’t one. She did run a stop light, apparently, many years ago, but other than that her record’s clean. No, she’s committed no crime; she simply has some relatives in another state that contacted the authorities in Illinois and said that Shirley needed psychiatric evaluation. It seems that Shirley’s husband passed away several years ago, and Shirley has at times been a bit depressed. And that’s all it takes in the great state of Illinois for a judge to issue a court order to haul someone of to a mental institution for "evaluation," from which that someone just might not return. Shirley said "No." Matter of fact, she met the Sheriff who went to pick her up for her "evaluation" at her door with a shotgun in her hand and said "No." She didn’t, apparently, point the gun at any one. She was just letting them know that she knew that legally, short of a warrant being written for her arrest, she is not required by law to have to go with the fine gentleman to the local mental institution. So, they shot her house full of tear gas. And now, it’s two weeks later, and this woman who, according to the court order needed to be evaluated because she potentially wasn’t able to survive on her own, is surviving just fine, thank you, after having her water and electricity cut off for two weeks and being surrounded 24 hours a day by jackbooted thugs who, ala Waco, for several days played loud music through bullhorns at her house all day and all night. Barry Manilow music at that. Cruel and unusual. Apparently, she has sufficient food and water to keep going, as she cans her own food; remarkable forethought for a woman who is allegedly possibly not capable of caring for herself and in need of a psychiatric evaluation. Of course, the two oil wells on her 47 acres of farmland might have something to do with her distant family members wanting to see her committed. Or the large sum of money that’s in her bank account, left to her by her late husband, who, allegedly, wasn’t fond of those distant relatives. Makes a guy wonder. Now here’s where the tar and the feathers come in: 200 years ago, folks had a way of dealing with out of control folks like the people behind this atrocity; they might have taken the judge who wrote the court order to have Shirley Allen committed and quite possibly the state police officers who have been harrassing Shirley Allen to the edge of town, covered their naked bodies with excruciatingly hot liquid tar, and then dumped a pillowfull of feathers on their screaming bodies. Maybe they’d get the point, at that point. Maybe they’d start to understand that you just don’t treat innocent people the way they’ve treated Shirley Allen. Maybe it’s time we, in the interest of diversity in our American culture of course, started bringing back some old traditions. I’m not sure there’s enough tar between our shining seas to deal properly with all the politicians and bureaucrats that are deserving, but it’s certainly worth a try, isn’t it? Isn’t it about time that We the People stood up for something? Like Right and Wrong, maybe? The reason our jackbooted out of control government and its lackeys behave as they do is that We the People are allowing them to; it’s really that simple. We haven’t told them "No" strongly enough, particularly on an individual basis. Tar and feathers; an idea whose time has come (again)? - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Teach us to bear witness.... (fwd) Date: 09 Oct 1997 17:01:03 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TEACH US TO BEAR WITNESS, TEACH US TO KEEP THE FLAME... I know this all over the Internet, but just in case.... The video of the film, Waco: The Rules of Engagement is now (finally!) available on video. Verfied: The video is available through the American Freedom Network, (800) 205-6245. The price is $24.95 + $4 shipping and handling. (I ordered one and was told it would arrive in about 2 weeks. While I don't expect any problems with AFN, I ordered this before I heard from Mike. McNulty (one of the producers) who is at least theoretically a more reliable source.) The video is also available from Mike McNulty. The following information was provided by him. Hello Folks, Thanks for inquiring about the "Waco- the Rules of engagement" Home Video release. We've been anticipating this day for almost five years now, and we are very excited about the opportunity to send it to you. You can order the two hour, thirty-six minute home video version of the theatrical release by sending $29.95 plus $5.00 shipping and handling in either cash , check, ,money order or credit card ( please give us the card number, expiration date , your name and phone number, in case of any problem, along with your mailing address.) Please provide your name and address and phone number with any order and within two to three weeks you will have your own copy of ' Waco '. Our mailing address is : 1001-A East Harmony Rd. #353 , Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525. If you would like to rush the shipping process you can fax or E-mail your credit card information to us . E-mail address is COPS555@AOL.com. Fax is (970) 472 -9049. Please provide all the required information so there will be no delay in processing your order. Thanks for your interest. We look forward to receiving your order soon ! Distributor inquiries are welcomed. Best Regards, Michael McNulty Producer - "Waco - the Rules of Engagement" Opinion: I'm not going to review the film here. Many reviews, including mine, are available on the "Waco" home page. (See end of article for details.) I don't think the theatrical version is as good as the original Sundance version. (I've seen both.) There was absolutely no need to edit this film, apart from the idiocies of film distributors who discourage long films. However, the theatrical version is still excellent, and I have only minor complaints about the editing. What matters is that as many people as possible _see_ this film. If you haven't seen it, or even if you have, this is one you should _own_ if at all possible. At this time it is unclear for exactly how long "Waco" will be available due to pending litigation between Producers William Gazecki and Mike McNulty (Gazecki is also the film's director), and Executive Producers Dan Gifford and Amy Sommer Gifford. It pains me greatly that the relationships among the people who made this wonderful film have deteriorated to this point. I've corresponded and spoken with both McNulty and the Giffords over the past year, and I believe they are all sincere, well-meaning people. They all deserve our gratitude for bringing the truth to people who had been fed nothing but government propaganda about a "bunch of crazy gun nuts who set themselves on fire". I understand that to make such a film took tremendous vision, creativity, and courage, and these same qualities can make compromise difficult or even impossible. But I believe that this particular message is so important that it _must_ transcend all personal issues, and I pray that the people involved can find solutions to their differences. While I'm sure that some may accuse me of "taking sides" since I'm advising people to buy a copy of the film that apparently has the blessing of McNulty and not the Giffords, that is not the case. Ordinarily I would advise people to wait until things settled. As a writer I'm quite sensitive to creative and intellectual property rights. But litigation can take a _very_ long time, and it's possible that the film will never be released again. I hope the litigation doesn't permanently remove the film from the public domain, but I'm worried that it could happen. It's also not inconceivable that the government would attempt to permanently suppress the film. (No, I am _not_ implying or suggesting that the government has anything to do with the lawsuit!) What is _most_ important is that the film be seen and be preserved. There are many reasons for my saying this. First, of course, is that the majority of Americans still have no idea of what happened at Waco, and a lot of them don't want to know. But unless we're willing to confront what the government, through two of its law enforcement agencies, did _in our names_, there is absolutely no hope that government abuses will ever end. Ultimately, _we_ are responsible for what the government does. Second, quite a few of those who bear responsibility for the Waco genocide (and that's not a word I use lightly), still occupy powerful and prominent places in our government. The majority of the members of the Congressional committees charged with investigating Waco, who in fact participated in a shameful coverup and betrayed their duty to both the victims and the public, are still climbing their political career ladders. These people not only must be stopped, they should be indicted, tried, and/or impeached. I'm not particularly hopeful that this will happen, but I know that it won't if large numbers of people don't _see_ what really happened. So, if we wait for what might be lengthy litigation, there simply won't be the time or opportunity for true justice. Third, apart from this film, and a few books, there is no way anyone ever will know what happened to the Branch Davidians. There are very few survivors to bear witness to what occurred and most of them are in prison. The site itself has been razed and the evidence "lost" or destroyed. Unlike victims of previous genocides there simply aren't enough survivors to tell the story to us and to future generations and to keep the memory alive. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't believe for a moment that the government and/or the people who control our educational system are going to "see the light" and teach our children or grandchildren what happened at Waco. If the episode is mentioned at all, which I doubt, it will be rewritten to detail the heroic exploits of the BATF and FBI. So it's up to us, each of us, as individuals. We need to bear witness. We need not only to tell our relatives and neighbors and friends what happened, we need to _show_ them. We need to teach our children what can happen when the government is given, or allowed to take, too much power. We need to teach them to be ever vigilant for government abuses and to resist them with all their might. We need to remind them how the media and the government can conspire to mislead them. Above all, we must instill in them respect for the rights of all people, no matter how strange their language, or clothes, or politics or religion might seem. Yes, _you_ need to see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". You should, if at all possible, own a copy. But a copy of "Waco" should not be misconstrued as some kind of status symbol or collector's item. Ownership of a copy will not automatically make you a "patriot". It's not something that you should keep in the safe with your autographed photo of Elvis, your first edition of _Gone With the Wind_, or your heirloom Revolutionary War musket. What I'm suggesting is that you show the film to your friends and neighbors, that you offer to make it available to your church, synagogue, mosque, ashram, or "cult". I'm suggesting that you not only show it to your children when they're old enough (This is _not_ a film for young children. It's extremely graphic and some scenes made even this hardened old ER doc sick.), but that you make it available to your children's high school or college, or to the homeschools in your community. If you can afford it, donate copies to libraries and museums. Send copies to your so-called representatives. And if your Congressman is among the guilty, let him know you _know_ he's guilty, and that you won't forget it at election time. If you must have a pristine collector's copy, well then, buy two copies. It's up to us. Once again, it's time to vow "Never again" - and to act on our vows. More information about the film is available at http://www.waco93.com. My review is located under the "Sundance Film Festival (Premiere) Reviews and also on my (sadly out-of-date) home page at http://www.therighter.com/waco.htm Comments are welcome. Please address them to the_righter@therighter.com. Disclaimer: I have no personal relationship with McNulty or the Giffords and my communications with them have been limited to discussing the film and its distribution. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the film in either its theater or video formats. Reminder: This is the LAST issue of "The Righter" that will be going out to my entire mailing list. If you'd like to continue to receive the column and e-mail updates, you need to subscribe. Send a note to majordomo@aros.net and put the message "subscribe righter-list" in the BODY of the message. You can unsubscribe by following the same procedure and saying "unsubscribe righter-list" instead. If you'd prefer that I never darken your mailbox again, you can delete this and breathe a sigh of relief - you won't hear from me again. Special note to those people on my "Waco" mailing list: You are receiving this column as a courtesy because of the subject. The Waco list is NOT automated and you do NOT need to subscribe if you wish to receive only mail relating to Waco. If you're confused or have questions or problems, let me know at the_righter@therighter.com. Special thanks to all of you who have already subscribed! Sarah Thompson, M.D. Issue #2, 10/9/97 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBND1LN9faQ3zqMQjXAQHaUAf9HK1gurTCWKCFA1lFVAmLBVhNngo/RnOG odqYuvlp/HTT+UUQs7FquBkGYLmtCtlKDiua8UwFK1knUsuxibcZl/aLD0HexQnj td6nQaHvmbI01eC72xY4kl8Pbc6S+o9GYavRSrycgo+X+R/iFOcaHCsV0y91iXO2 2hgZP3jwlf/NVjXoD1mAhsoKwMj3AMy1mGiqJ+t8i0WGmrP4UB4x4mgbS00dhbm2 4RcEKHHc3lC+qsTHpOir4dRwgVugkD7umb2LAWGTWffXSYmfekq1zwTjJigDaytB G3F01hN3eYrdM8E2Wcq0vGwKgY4ituRbchbIjHH9Jbsh2KdCiusQHg== =O2Bl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 09 Oct 1997 17:00:39 -0700 (PDT) > >This is just what I'd expect from those socialist wackos at aol. Nothing is >sacred to them, other than their own meddling in others affairs. The ONLY >reason I stay with those traitors is the weekly G.U.N.S. meeting on sunday >nights. > >Tom > I don't know for sure if this would work or not, but what would be the effect of patritioning a hard drive with AOL as the only thing in the partition? Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Countdown to Armageddon Date: 09 Oct 1997 17:24:07 -0700 VERY good article.. -- Thursday, October 9, 1997, WorldNet Daily 1998: Countdown to Armageddon? One of the world=92s top intelligence analysts says he expects Russia to invade the Middle East as early as the second half of next year. Joseph de Courcy, editor of Britain=92s highly regarded Intelligence Digest, has long predicted such an invasion -- but not for several more years. De Courcy cites a number of recent developments that, he believes, indicate that timetable has been speeded up. The main reason the Arabs and Iranians have delayed a war, says de Courcy, is because the =93peace process=94 has promised them vital real estate concessions that would make military victory more likely. However, it is becoming increasingly clear to Damascus and Tehran that there is no longer any political mandate in Israel for more territorial concessions. Another reason for waiting has been the desire by the Tehran-Damascus axis to neutralize Israel=92s nuclear deterrent. Even without the acquisition of a deliverable nuclear bomb, Syria may have developed sufficient Scud C missile capability as to rule out an Israeli nuclear option, de Courcy explains. But what about Russia? This is where de Courcy=92s observations get most interesting -- and alarming. Israel=92s military pact with Turkey, signed just last year, was believed by many to preclude the possibility of another Syrian attack. But there are two ways this important treaty between Ankara and Jerusalem can be undermined. Turkey faces a continuing threat from Islamic fundamentalism. De Courcy says, even now, the Turkish army is preparing for an Algerian-style Islamic uprising. Secondly, Turkey can be neutralized by its neighbor Russia. =93There is now the distinct possibility (openly aired by Turkey=92s former prime minister Tansu Ciller) that Turkey could find itself at war with Russia, over the supply of Russian S-300 missiles to Cyprus, by the end of 1998,=94 de Courcy writes. Turkey says delivery of the missiles would mean war. Russia says it intends to deliver the weapons by the end of 1998. Ciller says, point blank, if there is no change in policy, =93Turkey is going to war with Russia.=94 Why would Russia risk war with Turkey over a seemingly trivial strategic issue? De Courcy reminds us that this may be Russia=92s last chance to do what so many nationalists in that country truly want -- to re-establish itself as a superpower by providing the Islamic world with the means to defeat Israel and conquer Jerusalem. De Courcy suggests recent reports by Gen. Alexander Lebed and others about suitcase-sized nuclear bombs on the loose play a role in this plot. It is these weapons -- real or not -- that will neutralize America in this giant endgame strategy, he says. =93Whether or not any of these suitcase nuclear bombs have actually gone missing is now almost irrelevant,=94 he writes. =93After Lebed=92s= statement, what American president is going to call the bluff of a terrorist group that says it has one (or more) of these bombs (described by Lebed as =91ideal for nuclear terror=92) which it is going to explode in an American city (or cities) in the event that the United States moves to protect Israel against an Arab/Iranian assault?=94 And here de Courcy is missing one other important element. The United States is not prepared to fight in such a war. Its military infrastructure has been completed gutted by the Clinton administration. Now, at a time when the U.S. is incapable of mobilizing the kind of force it deployed in the Persian Gulf War, Clinton is asking for even more cuts in defense appropriations. Add this to the mix. Suppose De Courcy=92s scenario is even half right and there=92s conflict in the Middle East next year or the year after. Wouldn=92t that be the ideal time for North Korea to launch its long-anticipated invasion of the south? There=92s no way the U.S. would be prepared to fight on two fronts. De Courcy is by no means stating categorically that a Middle East war next year is inevitable. But he is issuing an unusually strong warning. =93The next 18 months in the Middle East will be fraught with danger, and it will take statecraft of the highest possible order on the part of the United States if a catastrophic war in the Middle East involving chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is to be avoided,=94 he writes in his bulletin. Aren=92t you glad we=92ve got Bill Clinton in the White House? Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and Executive Director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. =A91997, Western Journalism Center - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility=20 against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Stabbed AGAIN by Mfg. Group! Date: 09 Oct 1997 19:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Joel Friedman mochi1@ix.netcom.com [Please crosspost this to as many lists as possible. Also take a copy to all the sports clubs and anyone else you think should know about this.] I have been reading that the American Sports Shooting Council has struck a kind of deal with the Clinton Administration over trigger locks. This is the same ASSC that came to California in the final days of our recent fight (SB 500) to save over 1/3 of all handguns and persuaded some of the most anti-gun elected officials to push through an exemption for SA revolvers (a.k.a. "cowboy guns"). This is also the same organization that has claimed (through its representatives) that ASSC is not a firearms rights organization, but that it is a manufacturers and dealers organization. In reading the latest about ASSC in the Rose Garden with the most anti-gun President in U.S. history, the image that comes to my mind is one of Mr. Warren Cassidy. It seems to me that ASSC would just as soon sell out the firearms rights movement as say "hello." While I understand that they are going to say that the trigger lock thing is "just good business" or that "we would have to do it anyway," this is just the kind of thing that Mr. Cassidy would have said as he sold our freedom down the river. All of us know that trigger locks are not the answer to accidental shootings. Some of the trigger locks require that the firearms be unloaded or there is a danger of accidental discharge. This idea of "one size fits all" is stupid at best, and is extremely dangerous. No mechanical devise will ever replace a trained individual. Another aspect that really gripes me is that all the firearms rights groups are being made to look like they don't know what they are talking about, and, even worse, appear like all they want to do is stop any and all ideas to make firearms ownership safer. With friends like these, who needs enemies? I don't know why the national firearms groups are not saying anything about this, but I, for one, am mad as hell. Fighting among ourselves is one thing, but now having to fight those "outside" our ranks because an organization that should be in our ranks is doing its best to torpedo our efforts is intolerable. I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I believe this concerns every firearms owner regardless of whether or not they belong to a group. We all need to to stand shoulder to shoulder and let the firearms manufactures, distributors, retailers, and our elected officials know how unhappy we--the customers and voters--are with what ASSC has been doing lately (twice in 30 days!). It is time for hunters, collectors, sports shooters, and the self defense people to work separately and collectively to let everyone know that we are tired of cleaning up the manufacturers' mess, and then have them turn on us. We need to let our elected officials know that these people do not speak for us. Strong words? I don't think so. Just hard truths. This crap about "safety" is being used to beat us--and our rights--to death. We are giving away our right to choose who will be responsible for our own "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". I am going to write, not phone, all the manufacturers and distributors I can find. Anyone who has a complete list can help by posting it. Otherwise, this is a person-by-person effort, and for all of you who have been working your tails off to help protect your rights--and the business that these people have--should feel the same way. Joel Friedman mochi1@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 1911a1@gte.net Subject: Email to local newsbabe Date: 09 Oct 1997 22:36:33 CST RE: Your coverage of the trigger-lock agreement on the 10pm newscast Friday evening Laurie Everett: Ms. Everett, your coverage of the aforementioned event was flawed in at least two respects. First, you referred to the gun manufacturers as volunteering to provide "gun safety locks" on "every gun they sell" without specifying that the guns under discussion were *handguns only*. Next, you chose to include commentary from a virulently anti-gun spokesperson (Stephen Teret, who has worked tirelessly for decades to interfere with the right of ordinary Americans to own firearms) without bothering to present any sort of balance from someone on the other side of the fence. There are many resources available to you - both locally and nationally - which could have provided you a spokeperson to address the negative side of this issue. That you failed to avail yourself of any such resources strikes at your objectivity. This is analogous to your covering an important AIDS matter and using the Rev. Fred Phelps as your only authority. I have never noticed that you were particulary aligned with the gun prohibitionist forces, but this newscast has compelled me to re-evaluate my opinion. I have taken the liberty of cc'ing this missive to various groups (including the FCC) which have an interest in unbiased news coverage on this particular issue and will similarly cc any response you - or your management - should you care to make an attempt to address my concerns. Yours truly, Brad Alpert GunOwner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 10 Oct 1997 07:13:41 -0400 At 05:00 PM 10/9/97 -0700, you wrote: > snip > >I don't know for sure if this would work or not, but what would be the >effect of patritioning a hard drive with AOL as the only thing in the partition? > >Greg > > Greg, If they can read anything other than the Aol directory, then they can read whatever you have in your machine, no matter what partitions you might have. Sofware exists that enables anyone to read, and therefore copy, whatever you have on disc. That's why so many companies are having such problems keeping their data safe from prying eyes, even those directories that are password "protected". Passwords can very easily determined, and used to break into anything that is on the net. If you want to protect your data from those who would browse your drives, stay off the net. There is no other way. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 10 Oct 1997 06:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Tom Cloyes wrote: > > Greg, > > If they can read anything other than the Aol directory, then they can read > whatever you have in your machine, no matter what partitions you might > have. Actually, Tom, there may be an exception to this. If they are using a Win95-based system, and your relevant partition is formatted under OS/2 (as HPFS, the OS/2 file system) then Win95 (The World's Most Widely Distributed Computer Virus) doesn't even know the partition exists, let alone have the ability to read anything on it. I run principally OS/2, though I also have a Win95 (TWMWDCV) partion so I can stay familiar with the bloody thing, since 98% of my customers use it. TWMWDCV has access to C: and D:, which are FAT, but doesn't even *know* about E:, F: , G: or H:, since those are HPFS. What I don't know right offhand is if the various UNIX flavors are capable of reading HPFS files; a relevant concern since that OS is more likely to be the one on Internet provider servers. But if the tools the provider is using to snoop are running under 95, your HPFS partition(s) are completely concealed from them. Brewster -- *********************************************************************** "Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges." Tacitus W. Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 10 Oct 1997 09:48:33 -0700 Your statement is not true for all operating systems. A secure OS (such as Win NT with disks formatted with NTFS) can solidly secure directories and whole partitions from access by a user logon that is not authorized to view those objects. Another approach is to dedicate a machine to your net access, and use removable media (like Zip disks) to transfer files back and forth from that machine to your main machine or network. Fritz > ---------- > From: Tom Cloyes[SMTP:foolery@bright.net] > Reply To: roc@mail.xmission.com > Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 4:13 AM > To: roc@mail.xmission.com > Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control > > Greg, > > If they can read anything other than the Aol directory, then they can > read > whatever you have in your machine, no matter what partitions you might > have. Sofware exists that enables anyone to read, and therefore copy, > whatever you have on disc. That's why so many companies are having > such > problems keeping their data safe from prying eyes, even those > directories > that are password "protected". Passwords can very easily determined, > and > used to break into anything that is on the net. If you want to protect > your > data from those who would browse your drives, stay off the net. There > is no > other way. > > Tom > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: (fwd) AOL *way* outta control Date: 10 Oct 1997 09:54:38 -0700 Tom, [...] If they can read anything other than the Aol directory, then they can read whatever you have in your machine, no matter what partitions you might have. Sofware exists that enables anyone to read, and therefore copy, whatever you have on disc. [...] That's not precisely true. If every one of the volumes is mounted at the time of access, or during the communication session, then your statement _may_ be operative. However, if a person mounts a volume of a hard drive with a self-contained system and AOL as the only other item thereon, and all other volumes on that drive as well as all drives are unmounted, then that volume is the only thing AOL will see, if they can 'look', since that is the only mounted item to see. Look at it this way: If your computer cannot see it, then AOL certainly isn't, especially if it isn't linked, to anything on that volume, which is another important thing to remember. You cannot see what is not available. This is the way it works in the Mac world of things. The important thing to keep in mind is the capability of your driver and utility software. In fact, that is precisely the way I configure my system, and communications software. I throw a few other things on the disk volume that is mounted to present an 'apprearance' of things. The other disks and other volumes are unmounted at communication time. Another way I conduct business, is to use the available resident RAM as a 'ram disk', load the basic system and AOL or other communication program, on the ram disk, restart and don't mount any drive. If they try to read a disk, the disk utility will ask for a password. If that happens - and it has (not with AOL), I'll shut the connection right then - no use letting anyone get farther than that, you're just asking for multiple cracks at your system. Security is only as good as the thinking behind it. Consider the impossible, implement what's possible. And, [...] If you want to protect your data from those who would browse your drives, stay off the net. There is no other way. [...] Tom, never say "never", or "always". There is almost always another way. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Clinton and Trigger locks, another nail in our coffin Date: 10 Oct 1997 13:17:19 -0500 (CDT) You know folks this crap is getting real serious. We have a Socialist president taking bribes from Chinese Communist, both intent on taking away our rights our guns and our country. He sells the Whitehouse bedroom for $100,000 a night and shakes down our gun manufactures for gun locks. Never in the history of our Republic has our liberty been under a more dire threat and its coming from our own elected commander in chief. God save the Republic because our maggot elected officials are to busy feeding on the decomposing eviscerated bowels of the body politic. Paul Watson, Dallas ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: <199710091924.PAA24385@fs1.mainstream.net> (I'll send this to every list I can find, but I'm a relative amateur at this internet thing so please cross-post freely.) The appearance of Richard Feldman (leader of a group called the American Shooting Sports Council) in the Rose Garden with Bill Clinton this morning is nothing short of betrayal to the entire community of American gun owners. The AP wire says that eight gun companies appeared with him (the list with phone numbers/e-mail follows below.) Apparently they volunteered to accept Bill Clinton's trigger lock mandate for all new handguns, forcing gun owners to accept their rickety "child safety devices" at whatever inflated price they charge, whether you want one or not. Let's be clear about Bill Clinton. He is the de facto leader of a national -- no, global -- campaign to demonize gun ownership as a "public health epidemic." Trigger locks are just a small symbol of a massive and well documented campaign to convince the America and the world that gun ownership is a menace to society. Use a trigger lock yourself? Good for you. That probably means that you've evaluated your situation and decided it was an appropriate precaution for you and your family. That's your business and your decision to make -- NOT Bill Clinton's or Richard Feldman's. The Congress did the right thing on trigger locks, saying simply that they should be available through licensed dealers for those who want them. That bill was set to pass. But now Clinton has the ammo he needs to force a mandate. And what about Washington state, where Initiative 676 will be decided on November 4th? The Washington folks on the lists have told us what a complicated nightmare handgun ownership will be in their state if that monstrous ruse passes. But the voting public thinks it's a "child safety lock" initiative, and how do you argue against that when a handful of companies have signed off on the Clinton agenda? No matter what their real agenda may have been, they apparently need to learn a simple military precept: You do not EVER give aid and comfort to your enemies. And anyone who wants to argue that Bill Clinton isn't the single most powerful enemy of gun ownership has their head in the sand. There are far more questions than answers here, and I welcome you to join me in asking these questions of the parties involved. American Shooting Sports Council assc@compuserve.com (770) 933-0200 Smith and Wesson 1-800-331-0852 www.smith-wesson.com Mossberg (203) 230-5300 Glock (770) 432-1202 Beretta (301) 283-2191 SigArms (603) 772-2302 Taurus (305) 624-1115 Heckler and Koch (703) 450-1900 H&R 1871 (508) 632-2300 mochi1@ix.netcom.com [Please crosspost this to as many lists as possible. Also take a copy to all the sports clubs and anyone else you think should know about this.] I have been reading that the American Sports Shooting Council has struck a kind of deal with the Clinton Administration over trigger locks. This is the same ASSC that came to California in the final days of our recent fight (SB 500) to save over 1/3 of all handguns and persuaded some of the most anti-gun elected officials to push through an exemption for SA revolvers (a.k.a. "cowboy guns"). This is also the same organization that has claimed (through its representatives) that ASSC is not a firearms rights organization, but that it is a manufacturers and dealers organization. In reading the latest about ASSC in the Rose Garden with the most anti-gun President in U.S. history, the image that comes to my mind is one of Mr. Warren Cassidy. It seems to me that ASSC would just as soon sell out the firearms rights movement as say "hello." While I understand that they are going to say that the trigger lock thing is "just good business" or that "we would have to do it anyway," this is just the kind of thing that Mr. Cassidy would have said as he sold our freedom down the river. All of us know that trigger locks are not the answer to accidental shootings. Some of the trigger locks require that the firearms be unloaded or there is a danger of accidental discharge. This idea of "one size fits all" is stupid at best, and is extremely dangerous. No mechanical devise will ever replace a trained individual. Another aspect that really gripes me is that all the firearms rights groups are being made to look like they don't know what they are talking about, and, even worse, appear like all they want to do is stop any and all ideas to make firearms ownership safer. With friends like these, who needs enemies? I don't know why the national firearms groups are not saying anything about this, but I, for one, am mad as hell. Fighting among ourselves is one thing, but now having to fight those "outside" our ranks because an organization that should be in our ranks is doing its best to torpedo our efforts is intolerable. I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I believe this concerns every firearms owner regardless of whether or not they belong to a group. We all need to to stand shoulder to shoulder and let the firearms manufactures, distributors, retailers, and our elected officials know how unhappy we--the customers and voters--are with what ASSC has been doing lately (twice in 30 days!). It is time for hunters, collectors, sports shooters, and the self defense people to work separately and collectively to let everyone know that we are tired of cleaning up the manufacturers' mess, and then have them turn on us. We need to let our elected officials know that these people do not speak for us. Strong words? I don't think so. Just hard truths. This crap about "safety" is being used to beat us--and our rights--to death. We are giving away our right to choose who will be responsible for our own "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". I am going to write, not phone, all the manufacturers and distributors I can find. Anyone who has a complete list can help by posting it. Otherwise, this is a person-by-person effort, and for all of you who have been working your tails off to help protect your rights--and the business that these people have--should feel the same way. Joel Friedman mochi1@ix.netcom.com Topic No. 12 Message-ID: <343D9D86.DF708634@lightspeed.net> Sent to ASSC at http://www.assc.org/ I wish I understood why the firearms manufacturers decided to submit to Clinton on trigger locks. Is it because they would be embarrassed to be caught giving money to the Democratic National Committee through Chinese agents? Please provide a collective address for all of the firearms manufacturers who sold out so when I buy a pistol in the future I can send them the trigger lock. What they can do with the trigger lock I leave to your imagination. Bruce Stanton ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Impeach Clinton, by Mark Helprin Date: 10 Oct 1997 15:52:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Impeach By MARK HELPRIN Here we stand in a clearing of the most difficult century of human history, wanting our deserved rest, and standing with us may be the most corrupt, fraudulent and dishonest president we ever have known. At the very least the president, before he became president, was at the heart of criminal financial dealings and bribery involving his wife and various felons who were his close associates. Upon his elevation to office, he worked hard to suppress and obfuscate the details of what he had done, while continuing in the same pattern as both he and the same and a new set of dishonest associates hid, withheld and destroyed records, purloined FBI files, used the IRS to intimidate opponents, plotted to cage government business, met with drug dealers, arms traders and mobsters, raised illegal campaign money, sold influence and shook down the Chinese. If we tolerate crime and corruption in the belief that they are but a small challenge to our great stores of virtue and probity, when next we look those great stores will be gone. Although it has its own price in damage and pain, holding the president to account would mean that future presidents would be, if not uncorrupt, less corrupt. Anyone aspiring to the presidency, from senators and governors to young state legislators and attorneys general, would have great incentive to stay on the straight and narrow. Class of Manipulators The consequences of letting it all pass would expand through generations to come, altering the fundamental equations of government and the relations of the governed and the governing. It would legitimate the most disturbing myths and prove the most cynical accusations. If it is left to stand it will shift power insufferably toward a class of manipulators and cheats. We have moved in that direction before, but have always pulled back. Now we are in danger of not pulling back. Perhaps most frightening to the politicians in whose hands rests the ability to remove him is the president's popularity. But the machinery of impeachment is structured in a constitutionally miraculous fashion to burn away the many layers of deliberate confusion laid on by the arrogant hand of power. It can, in clarifying the facts and stating bluntly the truth, transform the protective angels of presidential popularity into devils of the most relentless pursuit. Those who are reluctant to hold the president to account because he enjoys a 65% approval rating seem not to understand that he enjoys a 65% approval rating because they are reluctant to hold him to account. The president's supporters who willfully sleepwalk through the stream of charges against him feel that an attack on him is an attack on their beliefs. They are mistaken. If he is removed from office, a president and vice president of the same political party and persuasion will remain. The near-impeachment and subsequent resignation of Richard Nixon did not, except for the strange interlude of Jimmy Carter, compromise a 24-year GOP presidential sweep. Besides, in so promiscuously adopting his opponents' positions, this president of muddy waters has removed a great deal of meaning from political battle and made opposition to him no longer a matter of politics or policy but mainly a matter of decency. As for his allies in Congress, they float on the wind like birds and will fly with the president only as long as he travels in buoyant air. Do not imagine that after counting the bodies thrown from the presidential sled the likes of Ron Dellums or Sen. Bob "Miracle Baby" Torricelli would stand by their captain even through a light drizzle. The president shifts blame. The sad faces that have been paraded before the camera before they quit or go to prison are the faces of people taking a rap, voluntarily or otherwise. But a president is responsible for what his minions do, especially when he directs them. He shifts arguments. His adventures in fund raising become his passion for campaign reform and then are transformed into indignation that his political rivals have prevented him from leading the American people into the cathedral of virtuous politics. He manages this because he may actually believe it. He and his apologists shift focus. They are astounded at the temerity of critics who compare him to Richard Nixon, and they love to make their contempt and astonishment clear. But there is an answer for them, which is that it is indeed possible to compare the two, and that in the daily exercise of comparison Mr. Nixon is animated in a ghostly walk toward Mount Rushmore. At least he had shame. At least he resigned. At least Republicans, broken-hearted though they may have been, finally stopped defending him. This president shifts out of the way, like a bullfighter. Of his many capes the vice president and Mrs. Clinton are the most waved in the wind. The president's wife is, of course, inextricably tied to the mass of escalating lies, but no matter what her crimes, sins or pretensions, she holds no office, and is therefore unremovable from office. She is a distraction, a diversion no less than the moon-faced underlings about to take a rap. The vice president is even more so, having by virtue of his office and his character great distractive potential. But though one of the distinct pleasures of modern political life, indeed of life in general, is to observe him as he simultaneously wounds and baffles himself,to bring the great cannon of a Senate trial to bear upon him would be like using an elephant gun to shoot an apple pip. The person in question here, as from the beginning, is not Al Gore. It is not Janet Reno. It is not Webster Hubbell, or Craig Livingstone, or Dan Lasater. And it is not Hillary Clinton. It is no one of these or anyone else but the president of the United States himself, in all his power and despite all his power. Each time a new infraction is unearthed, the president sits back, crosses his arms, and trumpets through his surrogates, "Where's the proof, the notarized film footage of me doing wrong? Don't you know? You can't catch me, I'm the gingerbread man." He defines the rules of the game and controls the initiative, which is another way of saying that what we have here is a bunch of lawyers throwing out a lot of smoke and chaff. But the time has come to cut through that smoke and chaff with a resolute move that will leave all the maneuvering and obstruction in its wake. President Nixon did not himself break into the Watergate. Nor were any direct orders uncovered implicating him. But a nation led by a worrying press made the appropriate connections even without judicial proof, and the president was driven from office. A quarter of a century ago, however, America had a general expectation of law and propriety, a press in implacable opposition, and a president who knew the difference between right and wrong even if he did not always observe it. Though these are now remarkable mainly for their absence, one thing is the same: The key congressional processes are controlled by the nonpresidential party. Because the press is languid and the public largely indifferent, responsibility falls on Congress. If justice is to prevail someone in Congress will have to step out in front and take some fire. Otherwise, nothing moves. A quarter of a century ago, the Democrats acted with anger for having lost the presidency and surety for having won Congress. Now the Republicans act with timidity for having lost the presidency and lack of certainty for having won Congress. They seem to be ignorant of Nelson's Trafalgar memorandum: "No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of an enemy." That is, to fight. Why is Congress so pale in tooth and claw? Along with a great deal else in American life, much of what goes on in Washington is treated as a game. Only the clever get to rise, and they are proud of doing what it takes to win, whatever that may be. To paraphrase Maynard Keynes, when people like this are alone in a room, there is nobody there. But the difference between life and a game is that whereas the logic of a game demands doing what will succeed, the logic of life demands doing what is right. This may at times be an indiscretion, but indiscretions rightly motivated are the way history moves. Half of statesmanship is taking the somewhat blind step that carries no assurance of success but which has about it all the qualities of what is just. The Republican Party and its intellectuals have been searching hard for theme and direction. Futurism, the Contract With America, national greatness, capital gains: These have fallen flat not only because they are bereft of urgency but because they are as well an evasion of duty. Politically, there can be only one visceral theme, one battle, one task. If the party embraces it, the party will solidify. If it rejects it, it will drift. Subject to the Law The task is to address the question of President William Jefferson Clinton's fitness for office in light of the many crimes, petty and otherwise, that surround, imbue and color his tenure. The president must be made subject to the law. When that moment arrives it will signify the rejection of flattery, the rejection of intimidation, the rejection of lies, the rejection of manipulation, the rejection of disingenuous pretense, and a revulsion for the sordid crimes and infractions the president has brought to his office. It will come, if it does, in one word. One word that will lift the fog to show a field of battle clearly laid down. One word that will break the spell. One word that will clarify and cleanse. One word that will confound the dishonest. One word that will do justice. One word. Impeach. Mr. Helprin, a novelist and Journal contributing editor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a light bulb? Date: 10 Oct 1997 16:04:18 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Allan J. Favish" wrote: >Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a light bulb? > >A Couple of Possible Answers: > >-- I don't recall. > >-- Ten. One to screw it in and 9 to sell access to the event. > >** Put your answers here! -- I have no independent recollection of any light bulbs being screwed in anywhere, and there is not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to prove that anyone did. Besides, there is no controlling legal authority regarding the screwing-in of light bulbs. All this attention to screwing light bulbs is merely an obvious diversionary tactic meant to draw attention away from our Electromagnetic Device Reform Act. OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE IS IN JEOPARDY because of these mean-spirited attacks!!! If even *one child* mismatches his or her socks due to inadequate and unacceptable illumination, the American people will know who to blame! We have cooperated fully with all investigations into the the so-called "lighting issue," having turned over 10,000,000 pages of Hillary's reading lamp usage, which is, like, WAY MORE than any other president, whose names we could mention, but we won't because Tom Daschle and John Glenn will do it for us during their network TV tour of Official Pronouncements later this evening. (Here's a fact sheet for all the reporters on their way to the cocktail party at Mike McCurry's in 30 minutes. Don't be late! Parking is limited...) And... according to his testimony during the Iran-Contra hearings, RONALD REAGAN's chief of staff screwed in approximately 2.3 light bulbs per month! Moreover, a Justice Department review conducted in 1987 stated that "any lighting devices installed during the normal course of business by a constitutional officer are exempt from the Edison Act of 1898 (12 U.S.C. 8), so long as the said devices do not exceed 80 watts." That ancient, old law has never been invoked, even when Barbara Bush's dog, Millie, screwed in a 100-watt bulb during an appreciation dinner for Americans in Support of Clean Teeth. I refer all questions to my attorney. - -- Julie mirasol@mindspring.com ========================================================================== mirasol@mindspring.com wrote: > > "Allan J. Favish" wrote: > > >Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a light bulb? > > > >A Couple of Possible Answers: > > > >-- I don't recall. > > > >-- Ten. One to screw it in and 9 to sell access to the event. > > > >** Put your answers here! > > -- I have no independent recollection of any light bulbs being screwed in > anywhere, and there is not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to prove that anyone did. > Besides, there is no controlling legal authority regarding the screwing-in > of light bulbs. ROTL! Janet Reno's anwer is: "What lightbulb?" But the real answer is probably two: one prostitute to screw it in while Dick Morris sucks her toes. NO, WAIT! Jocelyn Elders can do it alone. :) ABS ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: Stabbed AGAIN by Mfg. Group Date: 10 Oct 1997 23:40:03 -0700 (PDT) California's Conservative Opportunities E-mail: Stoos@msn.com (916) 451-5660 fax: 456-3279 Re: STABBED AGAIN BY MFG GROUP Joel, Your being mad as hell is not a pretty site, but as long as you want to burn, I guess I could add a little fuel to the fire. Guess who also supported AB991? For those who don't know California, AB991 was an Irwin Nowick brainchild to register the guns belonging to anyone moving into California. Folks who want to come here must report to a gun dealer, pay the appropriate fees, go through the background check and join the Attorney General's data base of gun owners. ASSI supported this bill because it was written so folks had to bring their guns to the dealers, and not the police stations. Real good for business to have all the new Californians forced into one of the shops at least once. Of course, there are no plans, and no money, to write all those people in the other 49 states, letting them know that they will be criminals if they move into California with a gun somewhere in the moving truck! Anyway, as long as you are writing, I thought this was a lot more serious than manufacturers taking photos with Bill and doing something on a voluntary basis. John E. Stoos California's Conservative Opportunities E-mail: Stoos@msn.com (916) 451-5660 fax: 456-3279 [end.] [Posted on Noban and Roc lists with permission from sender and recipient.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a Date: 11 Oct 1997 07:22:09 -0700 Paul, [...] >Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a light bulb? > >A Couple of Possible Answers: > >-- I don't recall. > >-- Ten. One to screw it in and 9 to sell access to the event. > >** Put your answers here! [...] My answers: 1. None, it's Hillary's work! 2. They don't screw it in, they merely hold the bulb up, and the world revolves around them! 3. You have to be smarter than a light bulb to change it. 4. None. They have to subcontract out for a feasability study, and then hire a team to do an environmental impact study, and then wait for it to be changed by the next administration. 5. Huh? Do they even know what a light bulb is? 6. invite an electrician in for tea and crumpets, and convince him/her that it would be a campaign donation to change the light bulb - for free. 7. 101. 25 to test the light switch a hundred times, just to make sure that the last person knew how to operate it; 25 to sit around and talk about what the first 25 were doing; 25 to run around and talk about the other 50, and 25 more to listen to the last twenty five, talk about the prior 50, and 1 (who overheard the fiasco take place) to go tell Hillary, so she can go figure. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a Date: 11 Oct 1997 07:22:09 -0700 Paul, [...] >Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a light bulb? > >A Couple of Possible Answers: > >-- I don't recall. > >-- Ten. One to screw it in and 9 to sell access to the event. > >** Put your answers here! [...] My answers: 1. None, it's Hillary's work! 2. They don't screw it in, they merely hold the bulb up, and the world revolves around them! 3. You have to be smarter than a light bulb to change it. 4. None. They have to subcontract out for a feasability study, and then hire a team to do an environmental impact study, and then wait for it to be changed by the next administration. 5. Huh? Do they even know what a light bulb is? 6. invite an electrician in for tea and crumpets, and convince him/her that it would be a campaign donation to change the light bulb - for free. 7. 101. 25 to test the light switch a hundred times, just to make sure that the last person knew how to operate it; 25 to sit around and talk about what the first 25 were doing; 25 to run around and talk about the other 50, and 25 more to listen to the last twenty five, talk about the prior 50, and 1 (who overheard the fiasco take place) to go tell Hillary, so she can go figure. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a Date: 11 Oct 1997 11:17:01 -0600 E.J. Totty wrote: > Paul, > > [...] > >Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a light > bulb? > > None. Light doesn't shine in the white house. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Re: Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a Date: 11 Oct 1997 11:17:01 -0600 E.J. Totty wrote: > Paul, > > [...] > >Q: How many White House officials does it take to screw in a light > bulb? > > None. Light doesn't shine in the white house. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) "Unintended Consequences" Quote Date: 12 Oct 1997 08:30:19 -0700 The novel "Unintended Consequences" is allegedly banned in Canada. Excerpt: "Remember Vince Foster? Look at that case. You had a guy who knew things that could cripple the administration, and he's about to get subpoenaed on them. His own *notes* said. "This is a ******* Pandora's Box" or something like that, when the investigators were trying to get his records. He"s got a hundred times more power and prestige than he did back in Jerkwater, Arkansas, but he's so upset about how mean people are in Washington he decides to commit suicide. As chance would have it, he elects to kill himself in a place he's never gone to before in his life. This tiny area just happens to be under the jurisdiction of the Washington department least capable of investigating a suspicious death. It just happens that he's managed to walk to a spot in this park where he killed himself without managing to get any dirt on soles of his shoes." "It just happens there are carpet fibers all over his suit," the young [FBI] agent named Mick broke in. "Maybe he rolled around on the floor somewhere before hopping in his car to go kill himself in the park." "Right," Butch agreed. "It just happens there's no blood on the scene but his corpse has less than half the normal amount of blood in it. Knowing that he was going to die, I guess Foster did the charitable thing and donated six pints of blood before killing himself. And he must have had superhuman motivation to get to that park to kill himself, 'cause every doctor I've asked said no one could remain conscious with so little blood in his system. "He just happens to use an old piece-of-junk revolver no one has ever seen before. There's no way he could have bought it legally in DC, so this high-powered lawyer must have brought the piece of junk all the way from Little Rock and kept it a secret." "Maybe it had sentimental value." "It just so happens that no bullet is ever recovered, and the guy is found with his arm stretched out by his waist with the gun laying in his open palm." "Which would make it the first suicide on record where *that* happened," Mick said. "And finally, the instant he's dead, the people who had the most to lose if he talked go clean out his office and destroy his records before we can seal the place. Only they leave this torn-up note that says, "I did this all by myself, nobody else did anything bad, ever, they're all innocent of everything, I didn't have anything on them, I'm just depressed." The man took a breath. "I've never seen a suicide with as many red flags on it as Foster's," said the agent named Butch. "But anyone who even hinted there should be an investigation was called a right-wing lunatic with a personal vendetta against that administration. If we jump around yelling 'murder,' we look like the same old bunch of government sleazeballs trying to whitewash the truth and make the feds look better." "I guess I'll keep the murder theory in the same box as UFO sightings," Neumann said, secretly relieved. Unintended Consequences pp. 835-6 John Ross Accurate Press $28.95 1996 ISBN 1-888118-04-0 - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ira Wilsker Subject: Campaign Contributions Date: 12 Oct 1997 13:19:49 -0500 FROM YAHOO PICKS OF THE WEEK: Again, we ask: Is it hot in here? We speak, of course, about the heated Senate hearings on Campaign Finance Reform and the to-do about White House fund-raising. Sure, everyone knows that big money is involved in federal elections. But where the heck is it coming from? Wonder no more; the folks at the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics have created Open Secrets, a close look at who is giving money to your Senators and Representatives on Capitol Hill. With a click of the mouse, get the skinny on just who is funding whom. For instance, we found that Senator Al D'Amato received 73% of his funds from individuals giving over $200, 15% from PACs, 11% from individuals giving under $200, and the rest from "other." Donations are broken down further by industry, geography, and top contributors. Also available is each member's email address, election schedule, and committee assignments. If you're doing research on the correlation between money and politics, try canvassing this database.. http://www.opensecrets.org/ -------------------- Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net ICQ: 1641171 http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm NOW on POINTCAST! Details at http://www.ih2000.net/ira/pcn_jump.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Court Blasts Starr's conclusion on Foster Date: 12 Oct 1997 12:34:09 PDT COURT UNDERMINES STARR'S FINDINGS IN FOSTER CASE Adds Addendum by Key Witness Dismissed by Starr By Cathy Leahy *Exclusive* Now that the court for which Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr works has issued his long awaited report on the death of former White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster for public consumption, it becomes evident by their actions in the last three months that the three judges who appointed Kenneth Starr are very displeased with his work. In addition to the 114 pages that the dominant media is reporting, there are a few more. Some twenty more to be exact. These pages are the equivalent of a neutron bomb detonated over official Washington. In these pages, Starr's case to support his suicide-in-the park theory is ripped to shreds. Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media recently wrote that Starr would have egg on his face if the judges decided to make these pages part of the report but Irvine was wrong. It is more like eggs benedict with hashbrowns. The author of the attachment is John Clarke who is the attorney for Ft. Marcy Park grand jury witness, Patrick Knowlton. Knowlton was harassed and intimidated, allegedly by government agents, when he had the audacity to state that the official version of his statements to the FBI about what he saw in the park the day Foster was found dead was a pack of lies. His subsequent lawsuit against the government for witness tampering notwithstanding, here is the dramatic sequence of events as they unfolded after Starr announced, on July 15, 1997, that he had filed his suicide report with the court: July 29 - Since under the statute "interested parties" may request to comment on the report, Clarke filed a request with the panel that is reviewing the Starr report, asking that in the interest of fairness and justice his client be allowed to comment on the report where his client is mentioned. He attached his 400 page case which contains 118 exhibits (mostly government documents) as evidence that Foster did not commit suicide in Ft. Marcy Park. August 7 - After reading the Clarke documentation--and one can assume they had also read the Starr report--the court issued a demand to Starr that he had 5 days (not the usual 10) to respond why Knowlton couldn't see those portions of the report. August 14 - Starr answered that Knowlton would be able to see those portions, but since Knowlton was not mentioned by name, he would not be considered an "interested party." August 20 (approximately) - Knowlton and Clarke were able to review the pertinent portions of the report. September 23 - Clarke filed a request that the court attach a 20 page filing which includes 13 footnotes and 9 pages covering 25 exhibits (all from government documents) and which contradicts the suicide theory and shows evidence of an FBI coverup. The court promptly ordered the attachment. September 26 - Starr filed a motion to exclude Clarke's attachment. Before Clarke even received a copy of the motion, the judges denied Starr's motion. They slapped Starr down. A stunning defeat for Starr. September 29 - Starr filed a 9 page motion to reconsider and the court slapped him down again. October 10 - Starr's report on Foster was issued by the court (even though they had the option of keeping it secret) with the Knowlton attachment against Starr's vigorous objection. "The judges had the discretion whether to include our evidence," Clarke told the Washington Weekly in an exclusive interview. "It is clear that they read our evidence and weighed it against Starr's report and didn't find his argument convincing." The judges have no statutory power to fire Starr from this investigation, only the attorney general can do that. "So they used the only way they had vent their anger. They forced Starr to append his own report with Knowlton's. They couldn't have done anything worse to Ken Starr's career. They took him to the woodshed and gave him a severe lashing. They must be fuming at this miscarriage of justice," Clarke said. It has been three days since this bombshell was dropped, and the press is still touting the official line while ignoring the real story. Clarke reports that the only contact he has had with the mainstream press is when NBC called him Friday afternoon to see if he would be available for comment. He has heard nothing since. "The report is full of changed testimony and manufactured evidence and they had the luxury of three years to do it," Clarke contends. In the case of Richard Arthur, the paramedic who adamantly insisted Foster had a neck wound at the jawline (which has since been supported by documentary evidence), Arthur was grilled over and over after his original testimony to the FBI until he finally admitted that he might possibly be wrong. "The Starr report is replete with instances such as this." Clarke discounts Starr's reliance on forensic pathologist Henry Lee who was instrumental in getting O. J. Simpson acquitted. "It's outrageous, but it is gratifying to know that the court saw through it," he said. Clarke said it is obvious that the panel was persuaded that the Starr report was a fraud. So now what? With the credibility of the Starr report in tatters, courtesy of a few brave souls and jurists who haven't been co- opted into the coverup, when will justice be served? "It's up to congress," replied Clarke. "Aside from our civil suit on the witness tampering, Congress is now the only entity that can see that justice is done. Congress must have full, open and complete public hearings on this subject immediately." Published in the Oct. 13, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact The Washington Weekly is funded exclusively by Internet subscribers. If you are not already a subscriber, please consider supporting our continued work. Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Science for the tyranny (fwd) Date: 13 Oct 1997 08:51:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com At 3:35 PM 10/12/97, Arthur Sobey wrote: <> >The vested interests in the drug war can be expected to fight back even >more than in recent months. Look for a slew of phony studies ala the two >week rat study of last month. Outright lies will replace deception and >disinformation as standard prohibitionist tactics. There is a lot of >money and power riding on a successful defense of prohibition. It will >be dirty. > >What thoughts do you have? > >Art Dear Art, When the Legislature of Utah pissed (spelling intended) their Indoor Clean Air Act, I was part of the demonstration in opposition. The premise of their act was that Restaurant owners do not have the right to decide whether or not to allow some customers to subject other customers (note, all customers are voluntary, none was coerced) to second-hand tobacco smoke. As a medical researcher, I obtained copies of the three biggest and most quoted articles used by the establishment as authority that second-hand smoke is a health danger. The studies themselves revealed that they were bogus. I have served as a peer reviewer for several medical journals, and as a reviewer I would have asked these authors to restate their conclusions because their data did not support their conclusions. Anyone as important as the AMA should have known and should have edited the article they published in their journal JAMA. The fact is, the increase in incidence of lung cancer in non-smoking women exposed to second-hand smoke was 30%. But, you have to know what that means. It doesn't mean that second-hand smoke causes 30% as much lung cancer as first-hand smoke. Nope, not at all. The incidence of lung cancer among smokers is about 1 in 250 or 40 per 10,000. The incidence in non-smokers not exposed to second-hand smoke is about 1 in 10,000 or 1/40 as much. When non-smokers are exposed to second-hand smoke, the incidence goes up 30% from 1.0 to 1.3 in 10,000. In other words, on a scale of zero to forty, non-smokers experience an increase in lung cancer from 1.0 to 1.3 while the incidence among smokers is 40. Big fucken deal!! But, the numbers are actually worse than that. In scientific research, we use statistics and probability. We usually like to say something can be considered significant if there is a 95% probability that the numbers were not produced by random variation in the samples. The 95% confidence interval, the real scientific interval for the actual effect of second-hand smoke on lung cancer was from 1.0 to 1.6 in the JAMA article. In other words, the real estimate of effect of second-hand smoke included _no effect at all_! It was actually lower in the other two studies and included negative effects. In fact, in the JAMA article, if only your father smoked, the mean effect on lung cancer in non-smoking females was a REDUCTION in incidence by 20%. Of course, that too, was just random noise around zero effect. In other words, the 30% increase was not only not clinically relevant, it was not statistically significant. No respectable scientist would dare claim any effect at all based on those numbers. Not, that is, unless they were part of some pseudoscience out to fulfill some political agenda. Soon after the Bolshevik revolution, Russian science was altered to provide only conclusions that fit the party line. The result was scientific dark ages in Russia, from which their science has not yet recovered. The same thing happened in China when every scientific conclusion had to match the words of Chairman Mao. When all truth became the property of the Catholic Church, Europe was plunged into scientific night that lasted a millenium! America is about to commit the same suicide on American science. The consequences are far bigger than the cigarette or the hemp issues. It is about our survival as a world leader in scientific and technological progress. It is extremely serious. More and more I read and hear about one more scientific prostitute giving in to the current government or business line. Ozone depletion, global warming, tobacco, hemp, pornography, gambling. All of these so-called evils have been opposed with pseudoscience. And our government-"educated" population is apparently unable to see. What do you do when your clergyman/doctor/scientist/expert prostitutes him/herself to the tyranny? Hopefully, the Internet and people like you and me will make a difference this time. Ken Larsen, Ph.D. Adjunct Research Associate Professor of Medicine University of Utah School of Medicine kencan@xmission.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: quote for the day Date: 13 Oct 1997 09:01:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Quote for the day: =========================================================== ===> American Historical Quotation: John Adams =========================================================== John Adams (1735-1826) was the 2nd President of the United States and the first president to live in the White House. Adams was a member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. In and October 11, 1798 address to the military, Adams said: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other people." (Source: 'America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations,' p. 10-11 by William J. Federer) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Court undermines starr's findings in foster case (fwd) Date: 13 Oct 1997 12:30:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I suggest this article be emailed to everyone you know (in the media and out) that you think would like to know the truth about the Starr Report and the Knowlton Insert. I would sugget a prime candidate be Steve Labaton of the NY Times, among others. Warm regards, Hugh S. Article is Pasted Below for your convenience: COURT UNDERMINES STARR'S FINDINGS IN FOSTER CASE Adds Addendum by Key Witness Dismissed by Starr By Cathy Leahy *Exclusive* Now that the court for which Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr works has issued his long awaited report on the death of former White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster for public consumption, it becomes evident by their actions in the last three months that the three judges who appointed Kenneth Starr are very displeased with his work. In addition to the 114 pages that the dominant media is reporting, there are a few more. Some twenty more to be exact. These pages are the equivalent of a neutron bomb detonated over official Washington. In these pages, Starr's case to support his suicide-in-the park theory is ripped to shreds. Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media recently wrote that Starr would have egg on his face if the judges decided to make these pages part of the report but Irvine was wrong. It is more like eggs benedict with hashbrowns. The author of the attachment is John Clarke who is the attorney for Ft. Marcy Park grand jury witness, Patrick Knowlton. Knowlton was harassed and intimidated, allegedly by government agents, when he had the audacity to state that the official version of his statements to the FBI about what he saw in the park the day Foster was found dead was a pack of lies. His subsequent lawsuit against the government for witness tampering notwithstanding, here is the dramatic sequence of events as they unfolded after Starr announced, on July 15, 1997, that he had filed his suicide report with the court: July 29 - Since under the statute "interested parties" may request to comment on the report, Clarke filed a request with the panel that is reviewing the Starr report, asking that in the interest of fairness and justice his client be allowed to comment on the report where his client is mentioned. He attached his 400 page case which contains 118 exhibits (mostly government documents) as evidence that Foster did not commit suicide in Ft. Marcy Park. August 7 - After reading the Clarke documentation--and one can assume they had also read the Starr report--the court issued a demand to Starr that he had 5 days (not the usual 10) to respond why Knowlton couldn't see those portions of the report. August 14 - Starr answered that Knowlton would be able to see those portions, but since Knowlton was not mentioned by name, he would not be considered an "interested party." August 20 (approximately) - Knowlton and Clarke were able to review the pertinent portions of the report. September 23 - Clarke filed a request that the court attach a 20 page filing which includes 13 footnotes and 9 pages covering 25 exhibits (all from government documents) and which contradicts the suicide theory and shows evidence of an FBI coverup. The court promptly ordered the attachment. September 26 - Starr filed a motion to exclude Clarke's attachment. Before Clarke even received a copy of the motion, the judges denied Starr's motion. They slapped Starr down. A stunning defeat for Starr. September 29 - Starr filed a 9 page motion to reconsider and the court slapped him down again. October 10 - Starr's report on Foster was issued by the court (even though they had the option of keeping it secret) with the Knowlton attachment against Starr's vigorous objection. "The judges had the discretion whether to include our evidence," Clarke told the Washington Weekly in an exclusive interview. "It is clear that they read our evidence and weighed it against Starr's report and didn't find his argument convincing." The judges have no statutory power to fire Starr from this investigation, only the attorney general can do that. "So they used the only way they had vent to their anger. They forced Starr to append his own report with Knowlton's. They couldn't have done anything worse to Ken Starr's career. They took him to the woodshed and gave him a severe lashing. They must be fuming at this miscarriage of justice," Clarke said. It has been three days since this bombshell was dropped, and the press is still touting the official line while ignoring the real story. Clarke reports that the only contact he has had with the mainstream press is when NBC called him Friday afternoon to see if he would be available for comment. He has heard nothing since. "The report is full of changed testimony and manufactured evidence and they had the luxury of three years to do it," Clarke contends. In the case of Richard Arthur, the paramedic who adamantly insisted Foster had a neck wound at the jawline (which has since been supported by documentary evidence), Arthur was grilled over and over after his original testimony to the FBI until he finally admitted that he might possibly be wrong. "The Starr report is replete with instances such as this." Clarke discounts Starr's reliance on forensic pathologist Henry Lee who was instrumental in getting O. J. Simpson acquitted. "It's outrageous, but it is gratifying to know that the court saw through it," he said. Clarke said it is obvious that the panel was persuaded that the Starr report was a fraud. So now what? With the credibility of the Starr report in tatters, courtesy of a few brave souls and jurists who haven't been co- opted into the coverup, when will justice be served? "It's up to congress," replied Clarke. "Aside from our civil suit on the witness tampering, Congress is now the only entity that can see that justice is done. Congress must have full, open and complete public hearings on this subject immediately." Published in the Oct. 13, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact The Washington Weekly is funded exclusively by Internet subscribers. If you are not already a subscriber, please consider supporting our continued work. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas It is well worth noting to those who do not have a hard copy that the *Append*ix is *not* appended; i.e., it is bound separately, making it quuite convenient for the media to "overlook" it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Bill of Attainder Project (fwd) Date: 13 Oct 1997 16:41:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ******************************************************************* BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT ******************************************************************* A new status crime: "Attending a Rave" (Submitted to the Bill Of Attainder Project by Eric Weisberg) Civil rights are often associated with thorny vines we are trying to destroy. The arrest of every teenager at a "rave" party in Gunter, whether they were doing anything illegal or not, involves such a plant--alcohol and drug consumption as well as all-night parties and driving by minors. A number of the minors were tried in Grayson County JP Court #1 on Thursday, found guilty, assessed a $150 fine, ten hour's community service, an alocohol awareness course, and suspension of their drivers' licenses for thirty days simply because they attended a "rave." The issues were clearly presented in the final arguments and the basis for the judgment was not left for speculation by the court. The prosecutor's final argument acknowledged that the young people tried on Thursday did not drink, own nor even touch alcohol or drugs at the party. She agreed that the legal definition of "possession" is "care, custody, control or management," of the illict substance, but argued for conviction based upon the status of being at a place where alcohol alegedly was possessed by some other unidentified and unknown minor with no connection to the defendant. She said, and I quote, "These [innocents] are precisely the minors we are targeting with the raids." The first person actually tried, Mr. Hernandez, asked the court and prosecutor if he was an individual being tried for his own idividual acts or whether he was being tried for the acts of others. The Court replied that there had been a significant number of deaths of teenagers associated with alcohol and proceeded to find Mr. Hernandez (and everyone else) guilty. The court apparently hoped to send out a message which would deter drinking and driving by others. This was a blatant violation of Mr. Hernandez' civil rights. We (I am included) do not like any feature of raves, but they are not illegal and attending is not a crime. PERSECUTING people simply for attending a rave, on the other hand, is a crime and ought to be stopped if not prosecuted. It gives these young people the wrong message about the law, the police and the "system." If we do not follow the law, who will feel bound by it? If people can be punished for non-crimes, who will be safe from persecution? These are not trivial questions. The raid was a response to a real problem for which there is legitimate concern. But, two wrongs do not make right. Ends do not justify the means. The law applies to the king as well as the subjects. And, sending a good message to the kids does not justify branding anyone as a criminal, taking his money, his time, his drivers license and subjecting him to "community service" and "alcohol awareness." Eric Weisberg, COO Internet Texoma, Inc. The ISP which DIDN'T This letter supports what the Bill Of Attainder Project has been telling people about laws that plunder. The prosecutors of these children in Gunter have no idea that "target raids" against those at a "rave" are like Hitler's "target raids" against Jews. Who will it be next? Anyone they chose. It is important for people to know that Texas pays lobbyists to promote the methodology, and polocies used to prosecute these teenagers. It is not just prosecutors involved in promoting these outrageous acts, it is also Texas Lawmakers. Until lawmakers everywhere are told they have no right to promote policies, laws, or legal devices that plunder our life, liberty,or property we can expect more outrageous acts like those described above. I urge everyone to study the documents on our website to further understand the outrageous encroachment upon our civil liberties this letter describes. Tom Saunders http://www.isc-durant.com/tom/billofattainder ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: A Note From Texas Date: 13 Oct 1997 21:10:04 -0700 Concerning Shirley Allen...from someone in Texas Illinois State Police are not human enough to observe the rules of Geneva Convention regarding prisoners. Who are the Nazis after all????????? I just got a call from Illinois where we (some Lubbock Texans, including children) spent around $100.00 buying and shipping non- perishable food and bottled water to Shirley Allen. It was simply a gesture of humanity and compassion. FEDEX was told by the troopers at the road block to turn around and ship it back to me at my cost. Shirley Allen wasn't going to get it. Period. The troopers offered to eat the food. They don't care at all about this woman. At least now my children know now what I am warning them about. Somebody call Jerry Spence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Besides defecating on the first and second amendments these troopers have ignored these as well: The Bill of Rights 4th amendment guarantees the rights of persons to be secure in their persons, HOUSES, papers and effects. Illinois has spat upon this ammendment. The Bill of Rights 5th amendment guarantees protection from loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Sixth Amendment says you have the right to know what you are charged with and to face your accusers. This woman has not broken a law!!!!! Yet she is being starved out of her own house. If these "lawmen" were doing this to a Whooping Crane they would be swarmed with brave protestors from PETA! WHERE IS MY AMERICA GOING? Welcome to the hall of shame Illinois, take it from a Texan who let Waco happen....it is no fun. The shame doesn't fade away. RICHARD H. KING Lubbock Tx. - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Wizards (fwd) Date: 14 Oct 1997 09:56:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com "I am Oz, the Great and Terrible," he said in a trembling voice. "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain!" From the Screen Play adaptation of The Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum ============================================ In Wizardry, the art of distraction is everything. The Wizard Roth has just concluded "hearings" in which he and his fellow Wizards expressed shock and outrage at the discovery that the IRS creature they have funded and fostered for decades has been behaving badly. As a "solution," the Wizards will offer the citizenry a choice between two new methods, a flat tax or a sales tax, one of which they propose to use to separate us from our money from now on. This like being offered a choice between the gas chamber and the electric chair. The tax code and the behavior of the IRS are problems, but they distract attention from the real problem. Wizards in both parties have created thousands of unconstitutional programs, bureaus and agencies that consume ninety percent of the money extorted from the people by the IRS under the umbrella of the income tax code. That is the problem. Other Wizards have been complaining bitterly about the need for campaign finance reform. The sale of federal favors is a problem, but for politicians the issue primarily serves to distract from the real problem. Why is it, one might ask, that "special interests" are so willing to give such large sums of money to professional politicians? It is because federal office holders, using powers never authorized by the constitution, are able to bestow tremendous financial benefits upon their clients. That is why the cash value of federal offices has reached such lofty levels. That is what makes it so important to curry federal favor. That is the problem. The earlier drum beat over the need to "balance the budget" was largely a distraction as well. It drew attention from the fact that government is consuming more than $1.6 trillion a year, largely for unconstitutional purposes.. That is the problem. To hell with all Wizards. Frank Brady Executive Director Coalition for an American Future caf@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~caf =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Freedom, freedom, wherefor art thou freedom? (fwd) Date: 14 Oct 1997 15:52:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com At 2:27 PM 10/14/97, wrote: >Welcome to Internet Dr. Larsen, many of us have gone through the same >anger and revolution at what our government is doing. May I suggest that >you not let your anger get in the way of rational thinking which I doubt >in your case it would. And not unlike the fact that crime is on a 4 year >trend down yet people have the perception that it is out of control, the >same applies to the body politic. You see in the 4 years that I have been >on Internet, shortly after the brutal burning to death of the Branch >Davidian, literally millions of Americans have been awakened from their >ignorant slumber through life. It is a slow and very hard to see thing >because the main Media we all depend on to reflect reality is in a huge >denial and cover-up of the truth. None the less just about anyone I talk to >from farmer to executive is more aware than ever before. We just all think >that no one else but us knows because the media keeps us in the dark. > >As we see the ever increasing amount of abuses by our government rest >assured that is a clear sign of their desperation that the house of cards >is about to fall. It is just a matter of time before the rotting flesh of >the eviscerated politicians sluffs away and they will be left with >nothing. Time is on our side. Every hour more people are waking up and as >a lady I worked with once said, " it does not take an Einstein to tell your >hip deep in horse manure!" >Regards, >Paul Watson, Dallas Good on ya, Paul, I've been in this political battle, on and off, since 1968 when I campaigned for Barry. In 1972, I was a candidate and a County Chairman for the American Party. I've run for just about every office including state senate, city council, school board, Mayaor, US Senate, and State Governor. Next year, I plan to run again as a candidate for US Senate. In '99, my eye is set on the Mayor of Salt Lake City, and again in '00 I hope to challenge the Governor of Utah. I have been up and down. I have been through several burn-outs and maybe I'll have some more. don't know. Like you, I'm very involved right now. I think the Libertarians have the right philosophy, but they have failed for several key strategic reasons. Rather than discuss them, I'll simply say I am now in the process of organizing a new Political Party called the Personal Choice Party. Hopefully, you will hear more about it and we will be active in several states by '00. The party web page is barely conceived and has a lot of work to be done, but you can check it out at www.personalchoice.org if you are interested. I won't say any more about parties now. Personally, I believe the printing press led to the independence movements of the 1700's. It was all those pamphlets and newspapers that led to the freedom of America and the revolutions against the monarchs of Europe. It was also the means for the Communisation of Eastern Europe, so tools work both ways. Then, I believe it was Television, not star-wars, that brought down the Soviet Empire. Now, I firmly believe the Internet will be the downfall of the American Dictatorship and the American Empire. They have learned that the best way to have a dictatorship and an empire is not to call them by such negative terms. They call it universal health coverage and foreign aid. Somehow, they have also educated a couple of generations into believing our present level of slavery is freedom. The media, industry and politicians have been in this business, along with the officially sanctioned clergy since the Pharoah's of Egypt. Now, once again, information on the Internet will prove that the pen is, indeed, mightier than the sword. Our victory is imminent, but in the meantime, I'm still as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take any more. Ken =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: With Friends like Bill & Hill Date: 14 Oct 1997 17:26:43 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ====================================================================== THE savage shredding of Janet Reno's reputation as a competent, objective attorney general is one of the saddest spectacles in contemporary political life.=20 Each day, the nation's highest law officer becomes more pathetic as critics flail at her bewildering performance, the White House makes a fool of her - and she plunges on, either oblivious or indifferent to the bonfire enveloping her.=20 She is not alone. Her plight is closely matched by that of Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), the once illustrious astronaut, who is being dismissed as a political joke for his embarrassing lap-dog role in the funny-money Senate hearing.=20 Glenn's relentless shilling in defense of the indefensible has been dismaying.=20 Their plights should not surprise anyone. Reno and Glenn are merely the latest in a long list of friends, associates, staffers and public servants who have been humiliated, fired, indicted, jailed, ridiculed or destroyed through their association with the Clinton co-presidency.=20 Indeed, no administration in recent memory has smashed so many careers and mashed so many lives as the current duo in the White House.=20 It's indisputable: Working or mixing with Bill and Hillary Clinton is the kiss of death. Why? Because their administration is dishonest and deceitful, tainting all who move in its orbit.=20 If this seems an exaggeration, consider: Nearly 60 people have either fled the country or taken the Fifth Amendment rather than testify in the Clinton fund-raising scandal alone. Sixty!=20 It's amazing how many have come to grief through their links to the Clintons. Here's just a partial list:=20 JAMES McDOUGAL: The Clintons' first major business partner in the Whitewater scam; convicted as a crook; jailed.=20 SUSAN McDOUGAL: Jim's ex-wife; serving 18 months in prison for contempt rather than expose the Clintons' suspect dealings in Arkansas.=20 WEBSTER HUBBELL: Hillary's partner in the Rose Law Firm; brought to Washington, prosecuted for fraud; jailed.=20 VINCENT FOSTER: Another Hillary partner from the Rose Law Firm. Stressed and depressed, he shot himself to death, prompting a mad scramble and coverup of his personal effects.=20 WILLIAM KENNEDY III: The fourth Rose Law Firm hotshot to come to Washington; forced out after using the FBI to cover the Travelgate firings.=20 CRAIG LIVINGSTONE: Bar bouncer who became White House security chief; held up to national ridicule when he could not say who hired him; out he went.=20 BERNARD NUSSBAUM: Sharp, highly regarded lawyer; one of five White House counsels in five years who became embroiled in Foster-Travelgate hearings and left town with his reputation severely frayed.=20 DAN LASATER: The president's close friend and large campaign contributor; jailed as a convicted drug dealer, then pardoned by then-Gov. Bill Clinton.=20 GOV. JIM GUY TUCKER: Clinton's protege, who replaced him in the Arkansas statehouse; prosecuted, convicted and jailed.=20 BILLY DALE: He and six other longtime workers in the White House Travel Office were fired and crucified in a cruel housecleaning by the Clintons as a favor to friends.=20 MAGGIE WILLIAMS: Hillary's chief-of-staff; forced to testify in (ENDS HERE - APPARENT GLITCH)=20 See KERRISON Page 26=20 Copyright (c) 1997, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [Image] Tuesday, October 14, 1997 Clinton=92s fundamental distortion of freedom ------------------------------------------------------- Bill Clinton lacks character. He has no principles. And he doesn=92t believe in immutable standards of morality. But what makes Bill Clinton the most dangerous president in the history of the United States is his fundamentally distorted view of freedom. In 1994, the president addressed a group of young people on MTV=92s =93Enough Is Enough=94 program. His remarks there illustrate, perhaps better than any prepared speech he has ever given, how his worldview is totally at odds with that of the founders of the American republic -- especially with regard to individual rights and personal freedom. In answering a question about the subject of personal freedom, he pointed out that many =93Asian societies=94 have low crime rates and high economic growth rates =93because they have very coherent societies with strong units, where the unit is more important than the individual, whether it=92s the family unit or the work unit or the community unit.=94 Notice, he didn=92t specifically mention =93the state=94 as one of those units. But, if he is presumably thinking about China, here, as one of the models, the state is, of course, the all-important =93unit=94 in Asia=92s largest country and fastest-growing economy. =93My own view is that you can go to the extreme in either direction,=94 he continued. =93And when we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.=94 Now, right off the bat, it=92s important to point out that the founders did not believe they, nor the government, nor the Constitution was =93giving=94 Americans anything. They believed that people had inalienable, God-given rights. It was the government=92s job to protect those rights. They also made no assumption that all people would use their freedom responsibly. Instead, they believed that individuals who abused their rights by abridging the freedoms of others would be punished. =93That is, when we set up this country, abuse of people by government was a big problem,=94 he continued. =93So if you read the Constitution, it=92s rooted in the desire to limit the ability of government=92s ability to mess with you, because that was a huge problem. It still can be a huge problem. But it assumed that people would basically be raised in coherent families, in coherent communities, and they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare.=94 Notice here that Clinton obviously believes that government intrusion into the lives of individuals was more of a problem -- more of a threat -- then than now. =93What=92s happened in America today is, too many people live in areas where there=92s no family structure, no community structure, and no work structure,=94 he said. =93And so there=92s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there=92s too much personal freedom.=94 To be honest with you, I have never heard anyone -- let alone =93a lot of people=94 -- say =93there=92s too much personal freedom.=94 Certainly there are unprecedented attacks on individual rights by government today. But, usually, these are cleverly disguised in far less candid terminology. Here, Clinton obviously let down his guard. =93When personal freedom=92s being abused, you have to move to limit it,=94 Clinton added ominously. Then he gave an example of how his administration was doing just that. =93That=92s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we=92re going to have weapons sweeps and more things like that to try to make people feel safer in their communities,=94 he said. Since 1994, the administration has taken many more steps to limit personal freedom -- not just in communities at risk, but for all Americans. His goal, he reveals, is not even to make people safer, but to make them =93feel=94 safer. This is the strategy of tyrants throughout history -- to hope people will trade freedom for safety, for comfort, for an easier way of life. =93And that=92s my answer to you,=94 Clinton concluded. =93We can have -- the more personal freedom a society has, the more personal responsibility a society needs, and the more strength you need out of your institutions -- family, community and work.=94 Of course, the one example of government action cited by Clinton -- the gun sweeps -- does nothing to strengthen the family, the community or work. It does, however, empower government. When you view through this prism the administration=92s other major initiatives of the last five years -- from government health-care to environmental regulation to his anti-smoking crusade -- his chilling, anti-freedom agenda becomes crystal clear. ------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and Executive Director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. Go to the between the lines archive . [Image] Send e-mail to Joseph Farah . Back to World Net Daily =A91997, Western Journalism Center Los Angeles Times Tuesday, October 14, 1997=20 Jones: 5,087 Registrants 'Potential Noncitizens'=20 Politics: Secretary of state won't say how many cast ballots or are in 46th district. Sanchez camp calls announcement 'grandstanding.'=20 By PETER M. WARREN, Times Political Writer IRVINE--Secretary of State Bill Jones announced here Monday that a comparison of voter registration and Immigration and Naturalization Service records indicates that 5,087 "potential noncitizens" were registered to vote in Orange County last year.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0At the same time, however, Jones would not say how many of t= hose suspected ineligible voters actually cast ballots countywide or in the contested 46th Congressional District race in which Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) defeated longtime Congressman Robert K. Dornan by 984 votes.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0He said the numbers were too preliminary to warrant breaking= them down. "We want to hone these numbers" before announcing how many of these people cast ballots or how many are in the 46th district, he said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Jones also used the Columbus Day news conference to call for= an overhaul of federal and state laws to eliminate voter fraud, including a requirement that voters provide their Social Security numbers when registering to vote.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"The apparently large number of [ineligible] people" who reg= istered to vote in the county "shows there is a problem," Jones said. "The question is: How do we fix it?"=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0In releasing his agency's findings on voter registration dri= ves conducted since 1992 by hundreds of largely nongovernmental groups countywide, Jones said the most egregious offender was Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, the Santa Ana-based Latino rights group that is the focus of a criminal investigation into allegations of voting fraud.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The result for Hermandad "is unique and different than for o= ther groups," he said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Jones said 58% of the people who registered to vote on forms= issued to Hermandad were ineligible when they registered. No other group with large numbers of registrants topped 5%, according to data released by Jones at the news conference.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Jones also declined to discuss the ongoing criminal investig= ation of Hermandad by the Orange County district attorney and Jones' office. The Orange County Grand Jury two weeks ago began hearing evidence in that case.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"I am not here to discuss the criminal investigation," he sa= id.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Mark Rosen, attorney for Hermandad, said Hermandad is being = singled out unfairly. Its registration drive "focuses on people in the Santa Ana barrio, and you are going to get a higher percentage there" of noncitizens who register to vote.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0In addition, Rosen said that many who registered to vote pri= or to being sworn in as citizens believed they could do so if they took the oath of citizenship before election day.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"The people who registered at HMN were led to believe by INS= agents that they were citizens and could register," he said. "At final interviews, they essentially were told they are now citizens."=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Lee Godown, a spokesman for Sanchez, called the Jones' news conference "grandstanding" based on faulty INS data.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"There are no hard numbers for the 46th, and we are interest= ed in why he has released numbers countywide that need more analysis," he said. "Regardless of what number he comes out with, it will be suspect because of inherent inaccuracy of INS databases and it will be meaningless."=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0A spokesman for Dornan said the results "are highly encourag= ing" and give every indication that there were sufficient ineligible votes cast to overturn the election.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The results announced at the news conference are the first p= art of a comprehensive check of the citizenship of Orange County voters that Jones called for in March.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Then, Jones released information about 1,200 people register= ed to vote on registration cards issued to Hermandad, concluding that "a substantial number of unqualified individuals registered to vote." He called for a complete analysis of the 1.2-million county voter file.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The bulk of the new figures released Monday came from a comp= uter check of 378,000 Orange County residents who were registered to vote by 1,500 third-party groups, he said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0These so-called third-party registrations included voters si= gned up by groups ranging from the Democratic and Republican parties to the League of Women Voters and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. About 472 of these 1,500 voter registration groups apparently registered at least one person who was not a citizen.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Jones' latest analysis rebuts claims made by Dornan and othe= rs that large-scale registration of noncitizens was not limited to Hermandad but was widespread among certain labor unions and minority activist groups engaged in voter registration, Undersecretary of State Rob Lapsley said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"This exonerates them," Lapsley said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Lapsley cautioned against drawing conclusions from the preli= minary figure of 5,087 apparent noncitizen registrations, saying that the figure could decline once the INS moves from a computer comparison to the harder, more time-consuming task of checking the initial analysis against INS paper files.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The analysis released Tuesday is based on a computer compari= son of INS databases and voter rolls employing dates of birth and first name/middle initial/last name matches, he said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Included in the 5,087 registrants, he said, were about 3,000= people who voted in 1996.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Civil rights activist Art Montez called the new numbers a "p= artisan bingo game" without meaning, because officials continue to use notoriously suspect INS data.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"These [voters] are being victimized and villainized for pol= itical purposes under the color of law," said Montez, past president of the Santa Ana chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens. "They have yet to verify one number."=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Jones defended the use of INS data, calling information supp= lied by INS on the third-party registrations "fairly reliable." He expressed stronger confidence in the numbers released about Hermandad, which had been under study by the INS and Jones' office for 10 months.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"We believe they are solid," he said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But the newly released information about Hermandad registrat= ions was in some instances sharply at variance with the data released seven months ago.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The numbers of "Illegal Registrants . . . who voted" remaine= d about the same, with 436 counted as voting countywide on the latest list and 442 on the list issued in March.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But the category called "Legal Registrants" dropped from 212= in March to 114 now; while the category labeled "Unknown Legal Status" went up from 105 in March to 208 now.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Neither Jones nor his staff could explain the changes.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"We have to take the information they [INS] give us," Jones = said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Jones's spokeswoman Beth Miller said the actual list of the = 1,278 persons registered by Hermandad, with the names and immigration status of each, could not be released because of privacy concerns.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Sanchez lawyer Fred Woocher said that what the changing Herm= andad numbers "really show is that they have gone backward" since the last list was issued. "They are less sure of their numbers now; the unknown has gotten larger," he said.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"This is a cynical political ploy" to get this 5,000 figure = out in the public consciousness "and has nothing to do with mustering support for voter identification at the polls."=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0A good part of the news conference, however, was devoted to = Jones' campaign to develop a "common sense [voting] system" that would still function as an "honor system" at the time of registration.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Jones advocates requiring voters to present picture identifi= cation at the polls, as well as revisions in state and federal laws to require the use of Social Security numbers to allow for the authentication of a voter's citizenship status.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0In addition, Jones proposed a number of ways to stiffen pena= lties and redraw statutes to more easily penalize those who falsely register, attempt to falsely register or induce others to do so.=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * * * =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Registration Problems=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Nearly 60% of the Orange County residents registered to vote= by Hermandad Mexicana Nacional may not have been citizens at the time they registered. Number and percentage of those registered to vote by various groups countywide who were apparently not citizens:=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Registration Group Percent Number Hermandad Mexicana Nacional 58.1% 742 Loretta Sanchez 2.4 12 O.C. Democratic Party 1.7 334 Secretary of State DMV 1.6 784 Southwest Voter 1.5 24 United We Stand 1.5 30 League of Women Voters 1.4 30 Reform Party 1.3 32 O.C. Republican Party 1.1 320 American Petition 0.9% 144 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Voters' Status=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Most of the Hermandad registrants who voted countywide and i= n the 46th Congressional district were ineligible to vote, according to the secretary of state. Citizenship status of voters whom Hermandad registered:=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Countywide 46th District (759 total) (555 total) Illegal Registrants 57% 436 55% 305 Unknown Status 28% 209 30% 164 Legal Registrants 15% 114 15% 86 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Source: California Secretary of State=20 Copyright Los Angeles Times =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas http://www.mediaresearch.org Media Research Center Tuesday, October 14, 1997=20 Conspiracy Anyone?=20 By Brent Baker Conspiracy anyone? Despite all the examples of how the networks have failed to pick up on negative disclosures about President Clinton and his administration, he really thinks there's a media conspiracy afoot to get him. On Friday, Washington Times "Inside Politics" columnist Greg Pierce picked up comments White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry made in the White House Weekly newsletter. McCurry claimed: "He [Clinton] refuses to believe that they do the things that they do only because of happenstance. He's just convinced that there's some general global conspiracy out to ruin his life and make him miserable... "In his heart of hearts, I think he really knows that the institutions are driven by human beings who are frail, and some have dark moments and some don't and you can't really generalize. Still, if you're sitting there taking a pounding every day, you'd think someone is out to get me."=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: *** Waco: The Rules of Engagement *** Date: 14 Oct 1997 22:39:05 -0700 Folks, I just received (and watched) my own personal video copy of Waco: The Rules of Engagement today. Get one. Matter of fact, get two, and use one as a loaner. It's that good. And everybody in America needs to see it. Citizens Organization for Public Safety 1001-A East Harmony Rd. #353, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80301, USA Voice: (303) 530-4635 Fax: (303) 530-2808 $30.00 + 5.00 shipping - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: NSA freedom of information request (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1997 08:16:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The National Security Agency has built a reputation on secrets. Those of us who have to work with the agency often joke about the NSA acronym, referring to Ft. Meade as "No Such Agency" or "Never Say Anything". I always believed these jests were slightly exaggerated. No longer. A few days ago I called the NSA Freedom of Information Office (FOIA) to ask some details on how and what to file for a recent SOFTWAR appeal involving Vince Foster. A pleasant young man answered the phone, took my name and put me on hold. After a short period the young man came back on the line. "Are you Charles Smith?" he asked. "Yes," I replied. "Charles Smith of SOFTWAR?" he asked again nervously. "Bingo! The one and only SOFTWAR." "Well," he began. "Please don't shoot the messenger but... I HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO NOT GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION. All correspondence with this office must be in writing." "You have been what?" I asked, somewhat stunned. "I HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO NOT GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION," he repeated. "Okay," I said, wondering how far his "no info" orders went. "Do you accept a fax as a 'written' request?" "I HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO NOT GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION," he repeated. This was starting to get old but I persisted. "Do you have a fax machine?" I asked. "Can you tell me if the NSA even has a fax machine?" "I HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO NOT GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION," he repeated in a robotic mantra. "You have been ordered NOT to give me any information?" I questioned, echoing his ridiculous statement. "Including if the NSA has a fax machine?" "Yes sir", he answered in a shaken voice. "I have been ordered not to give you any information." At this point some people would have blown up. However, giving the "messenger" my grief would have served no purpose. Besides, the humor of the situation was unavoidable. The entire conversation sounded more like a comedy skit. I couldn't help myself so I started laughing. "You don't know how silly this sounds," I said between guffaws. "I have been ordered ..." he replied, laughing nervously with me. "Give me your name son," I asked, chuckling out loud. The nice young man gave me his name. Obviously, he answered a question and perhaps, violated his orders. I wonder if he is doing FOIA requests in Adak Alaska? For those of you who don't quite follow please note - No government agency has the right to deny information on HOW to file an FOIA request. Thus, by not allowing me to even know what to file or where to file it, the NSA had broken the law and violated my civil rights. One fax to General Minihan's office (the Director of the NSA) later... The next day my phone started ringing. This time it was the NSA calling me. The NSA legal office, in the form of the head counsel herself, apologized for the earlier run around, claiming it was some sort of communications error. In the end, she promised a letter apologizing for the violation and swore that the NSA would give the SOFTWAR FOIA a fair appeal. Still, the messenger was clear about his orders. No freedom of information... The Foster papers belong to you, the people - Not to the Clinton administration nor the NSA. The vast array of government documents already published by this author, at great personal risk and expense, are FREE for all to read. No restrictions, no fees, no delays, and no "lawyer - client privileges". Nothing but the plain, unvarnished, facts as written by politicians and bureaucrats. They are a public service only made possible by our Constitution and the First amendment. It is a gift of truth. Afterall, FREEDOM of information is what America is all about. 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.us.net/softwar Pcyphered SIGNATURE: 02833CDFAECC2A824D72569F79B2F7F4BD3054AC01972F70B0CDA380520579C1 31C129C289C1F67C5B9C3A2EBFE5738BD417785ABBA62C31AF8211F583778E13 C5765C5CB9F3B77A ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Add another FOB Clinton Body count Date: 15 Oct 1997 08:17:18 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM: Free Republic Forum Death Of A Sooner Who Taped Business Deals Is Investigated Tulsa World Online October 14, 1997 The Associated Press OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The state Medical Examiner's Office is investigating the death of an Oklahoman who tape- recorded business dealings with a controversial husband-wife team of Democratic fund-raisers. Ron Miller, 58, of Norman died Sunday at Integris Baptist Medical Center, where he had been taken last week after becoming ill at home Oct. 3. Kevin Rowland, chief investigator for the state Medical Examiner's Office, said the case was turned over to the state because the hospital said the death was not fully explainable. Rowland said it would be weeks before all the testing is completed. Miller owned Gage Corp., an energy company that was sold to Dynamic Energy Resources Inc. in 1993 in a transaction that has been studied by federal and state investigators. Nora Lum, the chief executive of Tulsa-based Dynamic Energy, and her husband, Gene, were sentenced last month to 10 months confinement and $30,000 fines apiece after admitting to using "straw donors" to conceal their $50,000 in illegal contributions. The money went to the re- election effort of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and the unsuccessful congressional candidacy of W. Stuart Price of Oklahoma in 1994 and 1995. Miller tape-recorded phone conversations he had in recent years involving his business dealings with the Lums and their associates. More than 150 tapes have been turned over to the FBI. J. Dell Gordon, president of Mid-America Lamborghini, said Miller had turned over boxes of material to a congressional government oversight committee. Miller and Gordon were partners in Mid-America Lamborghini, which planned car dealerBalance = 18.0 pts ships throughout the Midwest and Southwest. They also had a subsidiary, International Lamborghini Museum, which had planned to open this month. Mid-America was formed after Gage was sold to Dynamic. The state Corporation Commission studied an Oklahoma Natural Gas contract that Dynamic received after it bought the assets of Gage and Creek Systems, a Gage subsidiary. Transcripts from a 1995 civil case said a condition of the asset sale was that Creek Systems settle disputes with ONG. Corporation Commissioner Bob Anthony wanted to know whether the ONG purchases hurt ratepayers. The commission staff found no evidence of wrongdoing or that the purchases hurt ratepayers. Gordon said Miller's death was surprising. "He went from being healthy to dying in a week," Gordon said Monday. ****************** Well, we have another unexplained death of someone with connections (in this case through the Lums) with Ron Brown. According to Nolanda Hill, Gene and Nora Lum passed $60,000 to the former commerce secretary through his son Michael, who had been hired by Dynamic Energy Resources specifically for that purpose. Mr. Miller's unexplained death brings to mind the unexplained death of Brown's Commerce Department suborbinate, Barbara Wise, whose nude body was found inside her Commerce Department office on November 30 last year. Ms. Wise's bruised body was subsequently autopsied, but the results of that autopsy have not been released to the public. In the light of Ron Miller's propensity for recording phone conversations with the Lums and other associates, it is not unreasonable to wonder if he possibly knew more than was good for his health. I would like to thank Jim Blumer for the tip leading to this very interesting story. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The long arm of the law Date: 15 Oct 1997 08:42:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [www.FreeRepublic.com] Topic: Constitutional Issues The long arm of the (c)law Los Angeles Times Syndicate October 14, 1997 Cal Thomas Not to be used for commercial purposes The long arm of the (c)law By CAL THOMAS (c) 1997, Los Angeles Times Syndicate On a visit to Miami last week I learned that the era of big government, far from being over, may be just catching its breath for a new attempt to impose itself as Big Brother or, in the case of a local restaurant, Big Sister. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was informed that Joe's Stone Crab restaurant, an 84-year-old family-owned Miami institution with 250 employees, had not hired any female "waitpersons" in four years. Without a formal complaint by any individual alleging discrimination, the EEOC used Census data to persuade U.S. District Judge Court Daniel Hurley that a state of discrimination against women exists at Joe's. Last July, after a 10-year battle between the restaurant and the EEOC, the judge ruled that even though Joe's employs some women, it isn't enough based on the number of women living in the area. Furthermore, said the judge, if Joe's doesn't come up with a way to hire more women, he will stop the restaurant from hiring anyone until it spells out in a study to be approved by him the qualifications necessary to wait on tables. Judge Hurley issued a procedure for hiring future employees, including precise wording he wants used in "help wanted" ads and questions to be asked of every applicant about their experience and qualifications. Between 1991 and 1995, 19 of the 88 persons employed at Joe's were women. Attorneys for Joe's say they've never discriminated and that the numbers used by the court are not correct. The restaurant faces a liability trial next year to determine damages. During the restaurant's annual hiring session, known as Roll Call, a retired Dade County judge was appointed by the court to monitor the event. With him as "observers" were an EEOC attorney, two industrial psychologists and two attorneys for Joe's. This sounds like one of those Third World elections that Jimmy Carter and his band of observers monitor to ensure there is no voter fraud. At last week's Roll Call, women made up just 20 percent of the crowd, compared to 35 percent of last year's applicants. Each applicant was photographed in compliance with another court ruling. Requirements include the ability to carry and balance heavy trays of plates that weigh 23.7 pounds. Jobs at Joe's are attractive because the pay for a seasonal job, October-May, is $30,000. Joe's attorney, Robert Soloff, says the court has established "quotas by (using) Census (data.)" He insisted that federal civil rights law does not require employers to attempt to correct a discrepancy between the gender of its work force and the community in which a business operates. "All you can do as an employer is to not discriminate when they show up," said Soloff. In the days when Joe's and its owners were a little younger, perhaps. But this is the '90s and your government will decide what discrimination looks like and prescribe the remedy. This is not the first case of its kind and it won't be the last. The Hooters restaurant chain, which is famous for more than its buffalo wings, paid $3.75 million to settle a class-action suit on behalf of men who were denied jobs. Hooters will be allowed to continue to employ voluptuous women and dress them in T-shirts and shorts, but men will be eligible for other positions. This is material for stand-up comedy, not serious law. The drop in female applicants at Joe's this year might inspire the EEOC to go door-to-door in Miami and force women to apply for table-waiting jobs if numbers are of paramount importance. Remember, the government once required busing of students to achieve "racial balance," as set by Washington. If the EEOC and the federal courts get away with imposing the restaurant equivalent of busing, your business could be next. Joe's female owner, Jo Ann Bass, says, "We are simply baffled at the manner in which government has intruded in our business." Congress should hold hearings to clarify the authority of the EEOC and the courts. Meanwhile, the restaurant opened on Monday. Employees are wearing buttons saying "I'm U.S. Government-Approved." ====================================================================== ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: rkba-list: NATIONAL APPEAL: Urgent- Please Help Us Defeat Initiatve 676 !!!! (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1997 08:26:32 PST On Oct 14, CHASPEN@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ++++++++++++++ READ AND DISTRIBUTE WIDELY ++++++++++++++++ Dear Friends, My sincere thanks for the post below from Joshua Greenland. In it, Sarah Brady outlines her "National Gun Licensing" Agenda if I-676 passes in Washington State. This Initiative is, indeed, a NATIONAL Gun Rights Crisis. The supporters of I-676 are few, only about 600 people. But their average donation is about $900 each. We, on the other hand, are many - over 8,000 and growing, but at a significantly lower donation rate. WE NEED A FEW DOLLARS FROM A MILLION GUNOWNERS TO WIN! The Gun Owners in this state are mobilized as I have never seen, but the deep pockets of the opposition make them a formidable opponent. I would ask that EVERY gun owner who reads this send just $1-$5 (or more if you can) RIGHT NOW to WeCARE in Bellevue, Washington so that we can stop this thing in its tracks. If we lose, the same initiative will appear in YOUR state next year. Have no doubt about it. Here is the address for contributions to WeCARE, the org. running the campaign against I-676. Election day is November 4th. Time is running out. WeCARE P.O. Box 50270 Bellevue, WA 98015 (425) 454-4915 - phone (425) 454-1553 - fax http://www.wecare-wa.org grassroots@wecare-wa.org teamleader@wecare-wa.org staff@wecare-wa.org The PDC requires that WeCARE request the following information for contributions over $25: Name, phone number, address and employer. The contribution website address is http://www.wecare-wa.org/page4.html Chas Political Action Director, Council For Legislative Action, Washington http://www.halcyon.com/claw/index.html Member the Website Team for WE CARE, the PAC created to DEFEAT INITIATIVE 676 http://www.halcyon.com/wac/support/ http://www.initiative676.org/ >======================================================================= > Begin Handgun Control Inc. letter, received Oct 7-8, 1997 >======================================================================= > >Sarah Brady >Chair > >Dear HCI Member, > >We have a tremendous opportunity to take a giant leap forward in our >fight to require gun licensing in this country. > >__And because it is imperative that we act with urgency, I am rushing >this notice to you and asking you to renew your annual membership >today.__ > >Here's our situation: > >On November 4, an _initiative_ will appear on Washington State's >election ballot which would require "persons possessing or acquiring a >handgun" to obtain a __handgun safety license__ that shows they've been >educated in the safe handling and storage of such guns. > >Although technically, this initiative will only affect residents of >Washington State, the truth is that its __impact will be felt all the >way to Washington, D.C.!__ > >Because if Initiative 676 succeeds, there's no question but that __we >will have created enormous momentum for a national gun licensing law__ >.... a __prospect that has the NRA and its allied gun groups absolutely >terrified.__ > >So terrified, in fact, that at this very moment they are pouring money >into a mammoth propaganda effort to defeat Initiative 676. > >Now you and I have seen NRA-backed propaganda campaigns in action before. > And we know how damaging they can be if they aren't countered with >boldness and tenacity. > >Therefore, we know that in order to pass this precedent-setting ballot >measure, our friends in Washington State must be able to counter the >barrage of propaganda we know the NRA and its allies will unleash between >now and November 4. > >And to do this, they've turned for help to the one organization that knows >firsthand how to combat the NRA's distortions, half-truths, and downright >lies -- Handgun Control, Inc. > >There's only one way to win this election. __And that's to reach gun >control voters -- the majority -- with the truth about how gun licensing >saves lives, and then to turn these voters out in force on election day. >And we have less than a month to do this.__ > >That's why I'm urging you to renew your annual HCI membership __and to be >as generous as possible.__ > >You see, with Initiative 676's election day looming, we simply couldn't >wait until we received all of our HCI members' membership renewal >instructions before making a commitment to act. We had to decided >immediately if Initiative 676 was aligned with HCI's long-range gun >licensing goals to get involved in this campaign. > >And because we are certain key members like you would absolutely want us >to seize this opportunity to move forward on gun licensing, we already >are hard at work in the two most critical areas of this historic election >campaign: > >FIRST, we are preparing a __saturation ad campaign to run on television >and radio during the closing weeks of the campaign__ that will explain >plainly and clearly how gun licensing will help reduce gun violence and >thereby save lives; > >SECOND, we are helping to __identify and activate every gun control voter >in the State of Washington.__ > >If we can complete these two critical campaign tasks on time, I know we >can win this fight. And here's why I'm so confident: > >Early, private polling clearly showed that 67 percent of potential voters >in Washington State are ready to support an initiative to require a >handgun safety license. > >This number will change to some degree over the next five weeks, of >course. > >In fact, once the NRA and Alan Gottlieb's ultra-extremist "Citizen's >Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" -- which, unfortunately, >is headquartered in Washington State -- finish bombarding voters with >their dangerous lies about guns equalling self-protection, this >percentage figure is bound to drop somewhat. > >But the question is, by how much? And the answer depends in large >measure on the level of support HCI members like you are willing to make >by renewing your membership right away. > >Because the fact remains that, as of right now, a majority of Washington >State voters are willing to support sensible gun control. > >__Which means we can turn out a winning vote on November 4 ... if we only >have the resources to do so__. > >Will you help make sure we have these vital resources by renewing your >membership today? > >I hope your answer is a resounding "yes." > >A victory for Initiative 676 will take us a giant leap down the road >toward eventual passage of a national gun licensing law -- just as >California's passage of an assault weapons ban in 1989 led to the >_national_ assault weapons ban we have today. > >And there's simply no denying the revolutionary effect a law like the one >we're proposing in our SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN would have on reducing gun >violence throughout the country. > >Let me take a few moments to explain why this is so. > >We now know that waiting periods and background checks are very effective gun >violence control measures. And we know this because we've accumulated the >hard evidence which shows that the Brady Law has stopped more than a >quarter-of-a-million criminals and other ineligible buyers from purchasing >handguns over the counter. > >Well, a _national_ gun licensing law would make it __even tougher__ for >felons and other high-risk persons to obtain handguns. > >That's because our proposed law would allow for a more thorough background >check, including fingerprint identification -- a process that, by itself, >would stop felons from acquiring guns by using false identification. But >that's not all it would do. > >Our national licensing law would also require verification of a person's >residency -- a provision that would stop gun buyers and gun runners from >being able to travel from a state with strong gun laws to one with weaker >laws in order to buy over-the-counter guns. > >And we know for a fact that this provision __would save lives__. > >Because if a national residency verification requirement had been in place on >February 23 of this year, Christoffer Burmeister would likely still be alive. > >You might not recall this young man's name, but I'm certain you'll recall the >incident in which he lost his life. > >He was one of a group of friends who were visiting the Empire State Building >on that fateful February day when a man named Ali Abu Kamal stepped onto the >observation deck and began spraying gunfire, killing Christoffer and wounding >six other people. > >Kamal's act of random, senseless violence is a textbook example of what can >-- and does -- happen in the absense of a nationwide requirement to verify a >gun buyer's residency before selling that person a gun. > >Because Kamal, a foreign national who was simply _visiting_ this country, was >able to walk into a Florida gun shop and buy a Beretta semiautomatic pistol >with virtually no questions asked. And then he traveled to New York City >where he carried out his deranged mission of "strik(ing) at ... the Empire >State Building." > >But why did Kamal go to Florida to buy his gun rather than buy it in New >York, the target of his criminal rampage? > >Because to buy a gun legally in New York State, a person must be >finger-printed and undergo an extensive background check for both past >criminal behavior and for mental illness. And in New York City itself, __a >non-resident must obtain a license from the police department to buy a gun__, >which can take several months. > >So Kamal left a state with strict gun laws to buy his murder weapon in a >state with weak gun laws. And because he could do this with ease. >Christoffer Burmeister is dead. > >I don't think any rational person needs a better reason than this to join the >fight for a national gun licensing law. Which is why your renewed membership >today will set the groundwork for a national law tomorrow. > >You'll be pleased to know that my husband, Jim, and I are going to Washington >State to personally campaign for Initiative 676. > >HCI also has put our Communications and Research Departments at the disposal >of gun control advocates in Washington State to help craft media messages, >develop public education materials and to do media training. > >And we are committed to sending a full-time organizer into Washington State >for the month of October to help set up the "Get Out The Vote" campaign, as >well as to using our extensive contacts in the law enforcement community to >get these critical supporters on board the campaign. > >And it almost goes without saying that we are reaching out to Washington >State HCI members and urging them not only to vote, but to __help get out >the vote on election day__. > >But, in all candor I must tell you that these activities alone won't be >enough to win the day for Initiative 676 on November 4. > >Because like it or not, in this day and age election campaigns ultimately >turn on the media. Which means we must compete with the NRA's propaganda >machine on television and radio if we don't want to see our 67 percent >support figure dwindle to less than 50 percent by election day. > >__A defeat for Initiative 676 could well spell political disaster for the >cause of gun licensing in America__. > >That's why I'm urging you as strongly as I know how to make sure HCI has the >resources to win Initiative 676 -- and to keep fighting for national gun >licensing -- by renewing your HCI membership today. Thank you. > > For a Safer America, > [signed] > Sarah Brady > Chair > >P.S. Because our friends in Washington State are feeling besieged at this >point, just knowing that you stand with them will be a great boost to their >morale. Please take a moment today to return your renewal contribution so >that when I go to Washington State, I can tell our colleagues there that >everyone at HCI is behind them. And thank you again for all that you do to >help make America safer. > >======================================================================= > end HCI letter >======================================================================= > >Here is the address for contributions to WeCARE, who is running the campaign >against I-676. > >WeCARE >P.O. Box 50270 >Bellevue, WA 98015 > >They request your name, phone number and full address (they don't specify >mailing or home) and say Washington State requires you write down your >employer for contributions over $25. The contribution website address is >http://www.wecare-wa.org/page4.html >======================================================================== [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Birthday card for Hillary Clinton Date: 15 Oct 1997 15:35:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- from a lurker: >> I just got a copy of the latest DNC fundraising mass mailing. It's a very slick piece. The address is printed in script. Instead of the usual third-class permit printed directly on the envelope, a stamp is affixed with "USA Nonprofit Org." The envelope contains a birthday card. The front of the card has some cartoonish figures and the title "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." The inside reads "May all your birthday dreams come true. Happy Birthday Hillary!" Here is the enclosed letter - B I L L C L I N T O N Dear Friend, I need your help to deliver a special present to the First Lady on her birthday. When Hillary turns 50 on October 26th I want to surprise her with birthday wishes from her supporters around the country. That's why I hope you'll take just a minute to sign and return the birthday card that I've included with this note -- I know my wife would really appreciate hearing from you. The card is decorated with a drawing of a pin Hillary often wears to show her support for children, along with an inspiring quote from Eleanor Roosevelt that reads, "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." Because Hillary has dedicated herself to protecting children and helping them follow their dreams, I think the card is especially fitting. Like Hillary, I believe that every child should have a chance to succeed, and that helping children distinguishes our Party's history. Over the years, Democrats have created and protected critical services like Head Start, the school lunch program and college loans. More recently, and thanks to your unwavering support, my administration has made other great strides for children: We've guaranteed health care for millions of previously uninsured kids; dramatically expanded child immunizations; made our playgrounds and neighborhoods safer; and next month we'll host a major national conference on child care. Furthermore, 27 million working families will get a $500 per child tax credit beginning next year, and more college loans will be available than ever before. But there is still much we can do for our children. And the best way you can help me fight for our kids is by electing more Democrats to Congress in 1998. (Over) So when you return your signed birthday card to Hillary, I hope you'll include a special contribution to help our Party prepare for next year's elections. Your card and birthday message will please Hillary. And your special contribution will help elect candidates who will support my administration's ongoing efforts to ensure a bright future for all of America's children. I assure you that nothing could please my wife more. If you and I can elect more Democrats in 1998, we can continue to strengthen our Party's tradition of giving America's children the tools they need to get ahead -- to make their own dreams come true. So, along with your signed birthday card to Hillary, I hope you'll include a generous gift to help our Party build its campaign treasury for next year's congressional campaigns. As usual, the Republicans are raising large amounts of money in preparation for the 1998 elections, and we are already playing catch-up. Unless you and I take action today, the GOP will strengthen its hold on the house and the Senate... and the gains that you and I -- and Hillary -- have made for our children could be lost. Hillary's birthday is right around the corner, so please sign and return your card today. And if you could include a donation to support our Party's efforts in 1998, I would be grateful. In advance, please accept my thanks for helping me make the First Lady's 50th birthday one she will never forget. Sincerely, (signed) Bill Clinton P.S. Hillary's 50th birthday is on October 26th, so please sign and return your card today. If at all possible, please enclose a generous donation to help our Party prepare for the upcoming congressional campaigns. Thank you. ===== The response card has a "Happy Birthday Hillary" headline and a color photo of her posing as Betty Crocker. It has several suggested donation amounts: $15, $25, $40 and Other $. The back of the card has the FEC reporting form, and states "The DNC only accepts contributions from U.S. Citizens". ### ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas End of cas V1 #976 ****************** ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Birthday card for Hillary Clinton Date: 15 Oct 1997 14:18:57 PST In that most Banks charge a quarter to a buck or more to cash checks or money orders, perhaps we should follow Lt.Col. Olliver North's (Ret), advice for appropriate amounts to send to the President's Legal Defence Fund, by sending a nickle or a dime, (remembering to request a receipt). Of course, if you too are being taxed out of existence, I'm sure just your two cents worth would be greatly appreciated.....:-) On Oct 15, wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: 15 Oct 1997 12:25:13 -0000 >From: jqp@globaldialog.com >Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:25:11 -0500 >Subject: BC sez: Give it up for the children > >from a lurker: > >I just got a copy of the latest DNC fundraising mass mailing. It's a very >slick piece. The address is printed in script. Instead of the usual >third-class permit printed directly on the envelope, a stamp is affixed with >"USA Nonprofit Org." > >The envelope contains a birthday card. The front of the card has some >cartoonish figures and the title "The future belongs to those who believe in >the beauty of their dreams." The inside reads "May all your birthday dreams >come true. Happy Birthday Hillary!" > >Here is the enclosed letter - > > > B I L L C L I N T O N > >Dear Friend, > >I need your help to deliver a special present to the First Lady on her >birthday. > >When Hillary turns 50 on October 26th I want to surprise her with birthday >wishes from her supporters around the country. > >That's why I hope you'll take just a minute to sign and return the birthday >card that I've included with this note -- I know my wife would really >appreciate hearing from you. > >The card is decorated with a drawing of a pin Hillary often wears to show her >support for children, along with an inspiring quote from Eleanor Roosevelt >that reads, "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their >dreams." > >Because Hillary has dedicated herself to protecting children and helping them >follow their dreams, I think the card is especially fitting. > >Like Hillary, I believe that every child should have a chance to succeed, and >that helping children distinguishes our Party's history. > >Over the years, Democrats have created and protected critical services like >Head Start, the school lunch program and college loans. More recently, and >thanks to your unwavering support, my administration has made other great >strides for children: We've guaranteed health care for millions of previously >uninsured kids; dramatically expanded child immunizations; made our >playgrounds and neighborhoods safer; and next month we'll host a major >national conference on child care. > >Furthermore, 27 million working families will get a $500 per child tax credit >beginning next year, and more college loans will be available than ever >before. > >But there is still much we can do for our children. And the best way you can >help me fight for our kids is by electing more Democrats to Congress in 1998. > >(Over) > >So when you return your signed birthday card to Hillary, I hope you'll >include a special contribution to help our Party prepare for next year's >elections. > >Your card and birthday message will please Hillary. And your special >contribution will help elect candidates who will support my administration's >ongoing efforts to ensure a bright future for all of America's children. I >assure you that nothing could please my wife more. > >If you and I can elect more Democrats in 1998, we can continue to strengthen >our Party's tradition of giving America's children the tools they need to get >ahead -- to make their own dreams come true. > >So, along with your signed birthday card to Hillary, I hope you'll include a >generous gift to help our Party build its campaign treasury for next year's >congressional campaigns. > >As usual, the Republicans are raising large amounts of money in preparation >for the 1998 elections, and we are already playing catch-up. > >Unless you and I take action today, the GOP will strengthen its hold on the >house and the Senate... and the gains that you and I -- and Hillary -- have >made for our children could be lost. > >Hillary's birthday is right around the corner, so please sign and return your >card today. And if you could include a donation to support our Party's >efforts in 1998, I would be grateful. > >In advance, please accept my thanks for helping me make the First Lady's 50th >birthday one she will never forget. > >Sincerely, > >(signed) >Bill Clinton > >P.S. Hillary's 50th birthday is on October 26th, so please sign and return >your card today. If at all possible, please enclose a generous donation to >help our Party prepare for the upcoming congressional campaigns. Thank you. > >===== > >The response card has a "Happy Birthday Hillary" headline and a color photo >of her posing as Betty Crocker. It has several suggested donation amounts: >$15, $25, $40 and Other $. The back of the card has the FEC reporting form, >and states "The DNC only accepts contributions from U.S. Citizens". > >### > > >========================================================================== >This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If >you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas > >------------------------------ > >End of cas V1 #976 >****************** > > >========================================================================== >This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If >you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: The long arm of the law Date: 15 Oct 1997 12:37:07 -0700 Paul, (Snicker! Snort!), [...] Furthermore, said the judge, if Joe's doesn't come up with a way to hire more women, he will stop the restaurant from hiring anyone until it spells out in a study to be approved by him the qualifications necessary to wait on tables. [...] Hey, I wonder what they're gonna do in Nevada, at the chicken ranches? Ahem, your honor, we, uh, humbly submit that, uh, there aren't enough males, uh, being hired to attend the, uh, amorous interludes at . . . Sorta gives a whole new meaning to chicken, eh? (Snicker!) ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: The End of the World As We Know It Date: 15 Oct 1997 15:34:39 -0700 Many of you probably remember hearing about the internet novel "Triple Ought." Well, the author has put it into hardcopy form and updated it. It's now called "The End of the World As We Know It," and it's an absolute must-have for *anyone* who wants to survive what's likely to be coming. Jim Rawles wrote the book primarily to get information out to folks so that they'll be able to survive in the event of a major catastrophe, be it economic, jackbooted, natural or whatever. The book is chock full of how-tos and what-to-haves, on subjects ranging from appropriate weaponry to food to gardening to home birth; and it's still an incredibly exciting read. It was called "Triple Ought" before because it essentially starts in the year 2000. You can get a copy by sending $19.00 + $3.00 for shipping (in cash, wrapped securely so as to not show through the envelope or a postal money order made out to "Clearwater") to: Clearwater Press c/o PO Box K Kooskia, Idaho [83539] I'm not exaggerating when I tell you how good this book is, folks. I don't stand to benefit in any way if you buy it; I just want to see people survive. In other words, this ain't spam; this is caring. Get the book. - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: The End of the World As We Know It Date: 16 Oct 1997 09:29:23 -0700 (PDT) snip >see people survive. In other words, this ain't spam; this is >caring. Ah but spam is in the eye of the beholder, and if you've ever had spam in your eye you know how painfull -that- can be! ; ) >Get the book. Wrote that wittiness before reading the first chapter on the net. Suddenly have an urge to call my bank and just sit listening to the voice menu system tell me my balance, over and over. Boyd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: A question from a high school kid (fwd) Date: 16 Oct 1997 12:10:05 -0500 (CDT) Every once and a while I get a question from people I don't know because I forward so many other e-mails around that a lot of people get e-mails with my name on it like I am some kind of important person, I am not. I got this question from a high school kid: how would you have answered it? >From pwatson@utdallas.edu Thu Oct 16 11:59:04 1997 On Mon, 27 Aug 1956, Meredith wrote: > Hello, > I found your e-mail address accompanying an article by Frank Ziegler on > the internet. > I'm trying desperately to find information about the current American > Socialist party for a research project. Specifically, I'm trying to > find party statistics and pertinent demographical information. If you > can help me, please let me know. > sincerely, > Meredith in Virginia > Boy that is news to me, I must have forwarded an e-mail out about Socialism but I don't remember anything talking about the party. But most of us these days consider the Democrats and Republicans as part of the American Socialist party.. Regards, Paul Watson >From pwatson@utdallas.edu Thu Oct 16 11:59:22 1997 On Mon, 27 Aug 1956, Meredith wrote: > Thanks anyway, I'll keep searching. What political system do you stand > for, if not democrat or republican? Forgive my naivete, I'm a lowly AP > gov't student in high school. sincerely, Meredith > Well that's a very tough question these days, worth a book or two. I guess I consider myself a Libertarian-Republican. I was also a AP History student in High School back in 1972 won the draft for Vietnam in 1973. I guess I stand for what was enumerated in the original Declaration of Independence. The intent of the founding fathers was a constitutional limited government who's job was to protect our God given rights from abuse from other governments Local or State. It has become a Socialist Nanny state who sees its role as a Nanny to a bunch of helpless children. In fact we were the Sovereigns who give power to the government to have limited power on our behalf. We are the principal and the government is our agent in contract law not the other way around. Now the whole system has become very corrupt with huge amounts of graft from the Drug mafia and the multi-national corporations who directly bribe, threaten or pay for the majority of laws that are passed. Most of the Federal politicians are there to get rich despite what either side might say. At one time the over all tax rate was about 5% of peoples income, today it is about 55% if you add up all income tax, sales tax, fees, and so on , city, state and federal. Most of this money gets spent on special interest or big business programs that are really there because someone is in that business and got the law passed to provide them a government paid market. Despite the best sounding intentions of the programs or the needs of the people most of it is waste, abuse and fraud if not just plain inefficient. No matter what system you pick, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Constitutional Republic, thats USA, or Religious it really does not matter. Very soon the elite and the corrupt will take over the power structure and use it to further their own power, wealth, and shower special favors on their family, friends and supporters. And the same thing happens to most large corporations as well, its kind of human nature. Thats why our founding fathers tried to set up a balance of power to check each others abuse of powers but it soon failed by the civil war and after. The solution is for people like you to become involved and become every vigilant because to many people like me were to busy living our lives and let it get this far out of control. Most people are good people and most government employees as well but a lot of people at the top positions are there for their own self interest and force or fool the people under them to go along with the program. So when ever someone of power is talking check your wallet and follow the money not their lips. Keep in touch, Regards, Paul Watson C.P.M., pwatson@utdallas.edu Senior Buyer UTD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: The End of the World As We Know It Date: 16 Oct 1997 11:14:50 -0700 >snip >>see people survive. In other words, this ain't spam; this is >>caring. > >Ah but spam is in the eye of the beholder, and if you've ever had spam in >your eye you know how painfull -that- can be! ; ) > >>Get the book. > >Wrote that wittiness before reading the first chapter on the net. Suddenly >have an urge to call my bank and just sit listening to the voice menu >system tell me my balance, over and over. > Boyd - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Shirley Allen Date: 16 Oct 1997 11:22:12 PST It appears to me that there is one way to deal with this situation, and that is to treat Shirley Allen, (and all others in this situation), honorably. That means, in that she can't come to the Judge, the Judge must go to her. There is precedent for this. He must inform her that he will order that her water, power and phone etc., will be turned back on, and that if she is short of groceries, he himself will provide some to insure that they are not tampered with, but that at the end of say, a week to two weeks time he must hold a proper hearing into the situation, in which she may speak to the subject and call her Dr., neighbors and friends etc., as witnesses in her behalf. He must further order all police and other authorities to leave her strictly alone during that period so that she may do her own shopping etc., if she wishes. Any examinations must be part of the Hearing, not some Psyhiatric Kangaroo Court aimed at defrauding her. She must be further informed that she must be willing to abide by his decision once the Hearing has been held. But then, this would require a Judge with a pair of balls..... -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Tip of the iceberg (fwd) Date: 16 Oct 1997 12:53:53 -0500 (CDT) > From: Greg MacIsaac > Subject: Tip of the iceberg > To: URANTIAL@WWW.URANTIA.ORG > > The Most Ethical Administration in History > > List of Alleged Crimes and Abuses of Power by the Clinton > Administration. > > For reasons of brevity, titles of individuals are omitted and > allegations are listed in summary style only. Each allegation has > been described in detail in the Washington Weekly over the past > few years. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bill Clinton > > (1) Conspired with David Hale and Jim McDougal to defraud > the Small Business Administration of $300,000. > (2) Used State Police for personal purposes. > (3) Abused his position as governor to extort sexual favors > from employees. > (4) Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating > evidence against political opponents: Steve Clark, Terry Reed, > and Larry Nichols. > (5) Knew about drug importation and distribution by a friend > and campaign contributor, Dan Lasater. > (6) Allowed drug money to be laundered through ADFA. > (7) Appointed and protected Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy > Malak who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring murders as > "suicides" or "accidents." > (8) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days > behind the Iron Curtain during the Vietnam War. > (9) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal > referral. > (10) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws. > (11) Violated the Constitution by signing into law an ex > post facto law, a retroactive tax increase. > (12) Fired RTC chief Albert Casey to allow his friend Roger > Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations. > (13) Fired FBI director William Sessions and the entire top > management at the FBI to prevent an autonomous FBI from > investigating the suicide of Vince Foster and other scandals. > (14) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Paula Casey who > prevented Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton. > (15) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their > silence about Clinton's crimes. > (16) Blocked Justice Department indictments after Inspector > General Sherman Funk found "criminal violations of the Privacy > Act provable beyond reasonable doubt" when former Bush employee > files were searched and leaked to the press. > (17) Appointed friend and felon Webster Hubbell to number 3 > position in Justice Department in order to be able to block > Whitewater criminal referrals by RTC investigator L. Jean Lewis. > (18) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a > Tennessee Democrat. > > > (19) Appointed a campaign activist to head the Commodity > Futures Trading Commission, without the mandated "advice and > consent" of the Senate, to derail a probe of his and Hillary's > financial dealings. > (20) Committed witness tampering by causing bribes to be > paid to Webster Hubbell. > (21) Committed witness tampering by causing a job with the > NSC to be offered to former Trooper L.D. Brown in return for > Brown's silence on several Clinton crimes. > (22) Rifled through L.D. Brown's personnel file at the CIA > in an attempt to find damaging information on Brown, a witness to > many Clinton crimes. > (23) Blocked Justice Department prosecution of Arthur Coia, > a union Mob puppet and heavy Clinton donor. > (24) Made fund-raising calls from the White House, a federal > property. > > Bill Clinton is under investigation by an Independent > Counsel and by Congress. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Al Gore > > (1) Made fund-raising calls from the White House, a federal > property. > (2) Participated in an illegal fund-raising event at the Hsi > Lai Temple were campaign contributions were laundered through > nuns. > > Al Gore is under investigation by Congress. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hillary Clinton: > > (1) Accepted a $100,000 bribe, laundered through cattle > futures, from Tyson Foods Inc. > (2) Speculated in Health Care industry futures while > overseeing legislative reform of same. > (3) Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira > Magaziner in the Health Care Task Force trial. > (4) Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred > documents that were the target of a court probe. > (5) Obstructed justice by ordering the removal and shredding > of Vince Foster's documents on the night of his death. > (6) Hired Craig Livingstone to conduct a political > intelligence operation against her opponents. > (7) Defrauded the U.S. Treasury of more than $10 million by > funneling Community Development Financial Institutions grants to > financial institutions in which she has an interest. > (8) Ordered Treasury officials to cover up the fraud by > fabrication of false documents. > > Hillary Clinton is under investigation by an Independent > Counsel. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Webster Hubbell > > (1) Convicted for defrauding the federal government (FDIC > and IRS). > (2) Executed obstruction of justice in the Justice > Department in several cases: The Inslaw case, and the RTC > criminal referrals on Whitewater. > > Webster Hubbell has resigned. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ira Magaziner > > (1) Violated federal law when he held Health Care Task Force > Meetings in secret and refused to release documents. > (2) Lied in court about the composition of the Health Care > Task Force. > > A criminal referral by Judge Royce Lamberth was not acted > upon by the Clinton-appointed U.S. Att. Eric Holder > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bernard Nussbaum > > (1) Obstructed justice in the Foster suicide investigation > by blocking access, removing documents, lying about his removal > of documents, and by retrieving Foster's pager from Park Police. > (2) Attempted to quash a Whitewater investigation at the RTC > through White House liaisons. > > Bernard Nussbaum has resigned. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > George Stephanopoulos > > (1) Accepted a $600,000 loan below market interest and with > insufficient collateral from NationsBank, a bank having business > before the Clinton Administration. > (2) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings. > (3) Obstructed justice by attempting to have Whitewater > investigator Jay Stephens at the RTC fired. > > George Stephanopoulos has resigned. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mike Espy > > (1) Accepted bribes from Tyson Foods Inc. and other > companies which were under regulatory control of his Agriculture > Department. > > Mike Espy has resigned and is awaiting indictment by a > special prosecutor. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Roger Altman > > (1) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings. > (2) When caught, lied to Congress about having lied to > Congress. > (3) Instructed Ellen Kulka and Jack Ryan at the RTC to block > the Whitewater investigation by L. Jean Lewis. > > Roger Altman has resigned but is still carrying out > assignments for the White House > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ron Brown > > (1) Negotiated a $700,000 bribe with the Vietnamese > government. > (2) Accepted a $60,000 bribe from Dynamic Energy Resources. > (3) Sold seats on foreign trips to DNC contributors. > > Was under investigation by an independent counsel when he > died in a plane crash. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Les Aspin > > (1) By denying them military protection equipment, Aspin was > responsible for the death of Army Rangers in Somalia. > > Les Aspin resigned and died before he could be held > accountable in a public forum. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > William Kennedy and David Watkins > > (1) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office > personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends. > (2) Coerced FBI and IRS agents into complicity with this > scheme. > > Kennedy and Watkins have resigned. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Catherine Cornelius > > (1) Removed documents from White House Travel Office. > Because those documents later became the subject of a trial > against Office Director Billy Dale, that became an obstruction of > justice. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Patsy Thomasson > > (1) Lied to Congress about the composition of the Health > Care Task Force and the size of its budget. > (2) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the > office of Vince Foster. > (3) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office > personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Margaret Williams > > (1) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the > office of Vince Foster. > (2) Solicited and accepted a $50,000 campaign contribution > from Johnny Chung in the White House in return for Hillary > Clinton meeting with Chinese businessmen. > > Margaret Williams has resigned. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Joshua Steiner > > (1) Lied to Congress about conversations with White House > personnel about the RTC. > > Joshua Steiner has resigned. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Lloyd Cutler > > (1) Lied to Congress about the contents of redacted > documents. > (2) Attempted to withhold vital information from Congress, a > felony. > (3) Obtained a confidential Treasury report and showed it to > witnesses before they testified before Congress in the Whitewater > hearings. Lied to Congress when he denied having coached > witnesses. > > Lloyd Cutler has resigned. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mack McLarty > > (1) As chairman of Arkla, was responsible for the bribing of > public utility officials. > (2) Conspired with Democratic Congressional Leadership to > block access by investigators to vital documents in a > Congressional hearing. > > Mack McLarty escaped prosecution when a lobbyist working for > him was convicted of bribery. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Harold Ickes > > (1) Broke into New York Republican headquarters in 1970. Has > never been indicted for this crime which was similar to what the > Watergate Plumbers spent time in jail for. > (2) Had contacts with the Arkansas-based Park-On-Meter > company which received questionable loan from Clinton's ADFA and > was alleged to be involved in arms manufacturing. > (3) Worked for Mafia-controlled labor unions. > (4) Set up a $56 million slush fund by Union Mobsters for > use in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. > (5) Arranged meeting between Mob figure and Clinton campaign > contributor Arthur Coia and Bill Clinton. > (6) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings. > (7) Improperly discussed a $500,000 contribution in a memo > to businessman Warren Meddoff, using White House computer, > telephone, and fax. Faxed instructions on how to launder > contributions through tax-exempt organization to evade scrutiny > of FEC. > (8) Attempted to obstruct justice by orchestrating an > approach to Whitewater witness Beverly Basset Shaffer. > > Harold Ickes was fired. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bruce Lindsey > > (1) As treasurer for the Clinton gubernatorial campaign in > 1990, he signed withdrawals from Perry County Bank, the president > of which was indicted for conspiring to conceal these withdrawals > from the IRS and FEC. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Marian Benett > > (1) Covered up credit-card fraud by USIA Inspector General > staff. > (2) Launched a politically motivated investigation of Radio > Marti, a staunchly anti-Communist radio station run by the > government. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Federico Pena > > (1) State and federal contracts were awarded to companies in > which he had a financial interest. > > The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to > appoint a Special Counsel. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Henry Cisneros > > (1) Lied to the FBI about payments to former lover. > Henry Cisneros is under investigation by a Special Counsel. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Janet Reno > > (1) Fabricated charges of child molestation against the > Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. > (2) Ordered the use of military equipment against citizens > of the United States. > (3) Ordered the use of chemical agents against citizens of > the United States. > (4) For more than a year stalled the appointment of a > special counsel to investigate clear evidence of campaign > fundraising illegalities. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Robert Reich > > (1) Lied to Congress when he wrote that there were no memos > circulating in the Labor Department instructing staff to gather > political material against the Contract with America. Such memos > were later published. > > Robert Reich has been replaced. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Donna Shalala > > (1) As Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison > instituted speech codes which were found to be unconstitutional > in federal court. Instituted tough-police star chamber > proceedings to drive politically incorrect people off campus. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Carol Browner > > (1) Used the EPA to campaign against Republicans running on > the Contract with America, an illegal use of the executive branch > for political campaigning. > > Carol Browner is under investigation by Congress. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Roberta Achtenberg > > (1) Violated the First Amendment when she ordered HUD > lawyers to silence citizens who spoke out against planned housing > projects. > (2) Exceeded her authority when she had HUD staff threaten > Allentown County to withdraw an "Use of English language > encouraged" ordinance. > > Roberta Achtenberg has resigned. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Deval Patrick > > (1) Used extortion to force banks to give preferential > treatment to minorities. > (2) Was found by the Supreme Court to have been abusing his > position to subvert the election process in a manner that created > more safe "black" seats. > > Congress began investigating the possibility of impeachment > based on abuse of power. Deval Patrick has resigned. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bruce Babbit > > (1) Paid a penalty for violating campaign finance laws > during his 1988 presidential campaign. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Valerie Lau > > (1) Started a criminal probe of Secret Service agents John > Libonati and Jeffrey Undercoffer after they had testified that > the Secret Service was not the source of the list used to compile > FBI files in the Filegate scandal. > (2) Provided confidential depositions of White House > staffers to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler ahead of Whitewater > hearings in 1994. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard Shapiro > > (1) Leaked information to the White House Counsel's office > that FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene had revealed in a confidential > FBI interview that it was Hillary Clinton who hired Filegate > operative Craig Livingstone. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hazel O'Leary > > (1) Accepted $25,000 dollars from Johnny Chung in return for > meeting with members of the Chinese Government. > (2) Paid outside consultants to prepare a list of "hostile > reporters." > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Eric Holder > > (1) As U.S. Attorney stonewalled repeated criminal referrals > of Clinton administration employees by courts of law and by > Congress. > > Eric Holder was rewarded with a promotion to Deputy Attorney > General. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry Potts > > (1) Issued a "shoot to kill" order against the Weaver family > near Ruby Ridge, Idaho. > > Larry Potts was promoted by FBI director Louis Freeh > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Anthony Lake > > (1) Gave the green light to an illegal arms pipeline from > Iran to Bosnia. The pipeline was reportedly used to smuggle > drugs. > (2) Lied to Congress about the illegal pipeline. > > Anthony Lake withdrew his name from consideration for > director of the CIA. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > John Huang > > (1) Committed espionage on behalf of Lippo Group and the > Chinese government. > (2) Facilitated payments from the Chinese government to Bill > Clinton and the DNC through Charlie Trie and others. > > John Huang has resigned and is refusing to testify to > Congressional investigators. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Summary: The only Clinton Cabinet Secretaries who are not under > investigation for criminal acts and have never had criminal > allegations raised against them in public are Richard Riley, > Secretary of Education, and Madeleine Albright Sec. of State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com Subject: Big 5 Campaign Is Working! Date: 16 Oct 1997 17:21:59 -0500 (CDT) Congratulations! Our Big 5 letter writing campaign is turning out to be *very* successful. Last week, Dan Schultz telephoned Big 5's General Counsel, Gary Meade. Mr. Meade advised Mr. Schultz the letters we have been writing have made a big impact on Big 5's Board of Directors and its officers. Big 5 has sent copies of all letters it has received to The Los Angeles Times, and it has had several discussions with the Times regarding is editorial policy against firearms. Mr. Meade stated Big 5 takes the matter very seriously, and it is evaluating its options. He also stated Big 5 intends to respond to all of the letters it has received. The hold up is the fact Big 5 is currently undergoing a corporate merger. Obviously, this is excellent news for us. Our letters are having exactly the desired effect. Moreover, the timing could not be better because Big 5 must present a positive image during the merger. The last thing it can tolerate during these negotiations is the specter of a boycott by unhappy customers. It is time to redouble our efforts. We therefore *implore* you: If you have not already written a letter to Big 5, please do so now. If you have, get a friend to write a letter. If you are associated with an NRA Members Council, have everyone at the next meeting write Big 5 a letter. Here's why: Big 5 caters to hand gunners, target shooters and hunters. Big 5 is also one of the LA Times's biggest advertisers, probably spending several million dollars each year. During the recent legislative fights in California, the Times ran virulently anti-gun editorials and news articles. While the Times's garbage did not get AB 23 or SB 500 enacted (yet), it had one very serious, negative result: Attorney General Dan Lungren withdrew his appellate brief in support of Chuck Michel's client in the Dingman case, regarding "assault rifles." Lungren's change of heart could seriously harm our chances of success in Dingman. In short, Big 5, a gun dealer, is giving *millions* of advertising dollars to the Times, which is editorializing against your right to keep and bear arms. Think about that next time you go to buy ammo at Big 5. Thus, a concerted, campaign directed against Big 5, with the possibility of reducing the Times's ad revenues, will get the newspaper's attention. Our letter writing campaign capitalizes on the idea retailers abhor negative press, angry customers, they are in a fiercely competitive business, and they are very sensitive to their customer's whims. And, our campaign is working! Therefore, please write a letter to: Mr. Steve Miller, President United Merchandising Corp. Big 5 Sporting Goods P.O. Box 92088 Los Angeles, CA 90009 (You may also telephone him at: (310) 536-0611) In the letter, make the following points: (1) As a Big 5 customer and gunowner, you are very displeased to see Big 5 spending its ad money on The Los Angeles Times which has repeatedly gone on record as opposing your right of self-defense, and of poor people to purchase firearms to protect their families; (2) Big 5 is thereby opposing your constitutional right to defend yourself and your family; (3) If Big 5 continues to support anti-self-defense newspapers, you will stop patronizing Big 5, and will tell all of your friends and family to do the same. (4) Remind Big 5 that as shooting enthusiasts, there are plenty of other retailers out there who would love to do business with you. (5) Mention a specific purchased planned in the near future, or better yet, enclose a copy of a receipt from a different retailer and explain you did not purchase it from Big 5 because of its ads in the Times. And, please, be polite and respectful in your letter. Thank you, Steve Silver Vice President The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316 (818) 734-3066 (The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) Visit the LSAS's Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Remember: Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. *** Self-defense is not a crime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com Subject: Immediate Action: Oppose Margaret Morrow Date: 16 Oct 1997 17:24:04 -0500 (CDT) IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED! [PLEASE CROSS-POST AND RE-POST] Immediate action is needed to prevent Margaret Morrow from being appointed to the federal bench! A vote in the Senate on one of Clinton's most liberal and controversial federal court nominations is scheduled to take place in the next few weeks. Fortunately, Sen. John Ashcroft announced he will fight the nomination. *He needs our help!* Margaret Morrow on Firearms: She was President of the California State Bar during the 1993-1994 session. The National Law Journal (10/25/93) reported that the October 1993 State Bar convention "had only one big issue, gun control." Even though a 1990 Supreme Court decision prohibited the California bar from using dues for political activity, Morrow "vowed" to push the gun control resolution anyway. Morrow on other issues: In a 1988 article in the Los Angeles Lawyer magazine, she opposed the initiative process in California. Her basis? Allowing the 20 million voters to decide important political issues "renders ephemeral any real hope of intelligent voting of the majority." Translation: Politicians are better able to decide what is good for America than American voters are. During the Judiciary Committee hearings, Sen. Grassley questioned whether, in light of the derailings of Propositions 197 and 209 by activist federal judges, we really want another activist judge on the federal bench. (And don't forget the 9th Circuit's recent invalidation of the voter-approved term limits in California). Morrow is a member of California Women Lawyers, which has taken positions in favor of affirmative action and parental leave. She wrote an article in the February, 1989, issue of the California Lawyer which favored the approach of race issues to justify quotas. Morrow also wants bar associations to take a "strong active voice" on political issues. She has also gone on record in favor of unrestricted Legal Services Corp. funding, and she received an award from the Legal Aid Foundation in Los Angeles in 1990. If Margaret Morrow is not the type of person you want to sit as a federal judge *for life* please do the following: 1) Write to Sen. Ashcroft and state your support for his efforts to stop Morrow's confirmation as a federal judge. His address is: Hon. John Ashcroft United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 2) Write both senators from your state and advise them you oppose Morrow's nomination to the federal bench. Ask them to vote *not* to confirm Margaret Morrow when/if her nomination comes up for a vote. Thank you, Steve Silver Vice President The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316 (818) 734-3066 (The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) Visit the LSAS's Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Remember: Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. *** Self-defense is not a crime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com Subject: Location of 'ATF Night' Date: 16 Oct 1997 18:53:50 -0500 (CDT) We were just advised that San Gennaro Cafe has not yet moved. This means 'ATF Night' will take place at the usual place: The CigaRoom, San Gennaro Cafe, 9543 Culver Blvd., at the intersection of Washington. Sorry for the incovenience. Steve Silver Vice President The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316 (818) 734-3066 (The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) Visit the LSAS's Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Remember: Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. *** Self-defense is not a crime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: EXECUTIVE ORDERS: Bonfire for the Constitution (Part I) (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1997 07:52:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Chris W. Stark - GOA Texas Rep." EXECUTIVE ORDERS: Bonfire for the Constitution (Part I) On June 3, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Orde r#12919 gathering together into a single document all the power and athority of a multitude of Executive Ordersissued by preceding presidents from John Kennedy on. Recent examination of this Executive Order has brought to light that the consolidation of previous presidential orders deliver unprecedented authority into the hands of the Chief Executive that exceed those powers granted him under the U.S. Constitution. Incorporated under the aegis of President Clinton's EO #12919 are powers originally claimed by President Kennedy in a series of Executive Orders signed into "law"in February of 1962 which, if invoked, would virtually suspend the greater portion of liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In Section 3 of Kennedy's original EO #10995 entitled, "ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS" there is the vague statement, "Such authority shall include the power to amend modify, or revoke frequency assignments." Innocuous as this sounds, it embodies the power of the Chief Executive, in time of "national emergency", to seize control of all radio and other telecommunications. On the same day that President Kennedy signed EO #10995, he also gave birth to four successive Orders that Clinton included in his EO containing provisions to disable constitutional rights. Executive Order #10997 empowers the Secretary of the Interior to seize all energy production facilities--specifically, "electrical power", "petroleum", "gas", "solid fuels", and "minerals". Section 3, subsection (d) of that order, entitled "Claimancy" states: Prepare plans to claim materials, manpower, equipment, supplies and services needed in support of assigned responsibilities and other essential functions of the Department...to insure availability of such resources in an emergency. [emphasis and supplied] Note the word "claim" in reference to "materials, manpower, equipment, supplies and services". The legal definition, as supplied by Black's Law Dictionary is, "To demand as one's own or as one's right...means by or through which claimant obtains possession or enjoyment of a privilege or thing. Demand for money or property as of a right...." This means that the government may, upon declaration of a state of local or national emergency, seize any of the above, private or otherwise, including "manpower". As to what constitutes a national emergency again Black's definition is quite revealing: "A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war." Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732. [emphasis supplied] EO #10998 places all food resources under authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. EO #10999 invests the Secretary of Commerce with control over all means of transportation, public and private. EO #11000 provides for the establishment of manpower resources at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, with the authority to "claim" services (labor) and involuntary relocation of workers. Collateral authority for this conscription of labor is given in Title 50 app. United States Code, Section 2153 "WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENCE" under the section addressing civilian dispositionentitled, "DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950" in which is set forth that civilian personnel may be assigned work without regard to payment or reimbursement. It is important to note that according to the "War and Emergency Powers Act" the United States has legally been under a state of national emergency since its enactment in 1933. It has never been repealed, thus leaving the president with instant powers to suspend the constitution. Most legal scholars and legislators whohave studied the matter concur that the War and Emergency Powers Act has, in reality, already suspended the Constitution since the moment the act was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The actual suspension of those consitutional rights awaits only the impetus of a national emergency requiring it. In 1933 a U.S. Congressman entered the following statement into the Congressional Record: "I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the same....the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead." The introduction to Senate Report 93-549, entered into the Congressional Record forty years later in 1973 states: "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule....For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have from, at least, the Civil War, in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Following the introduction the report's opening statement goes on to say: "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." Not overlooked by those drafting the Constitution was the possible need to address national emergencies. The document contains certain provisions indicating that its signatories conceived of the possibility that some guarantees of personal liberties may,in the national interest, require suspension. Article 1, Section 9 states: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion [an internal occurrence] or invasion [external] the public safety require it." This grants the citizen the freedom from imprisonment or detention without due process. The proviso "unless when in casesof rebellion or invasion the public safety require it" indicates the necessity to provide for some contingencies that may also carry with them the possibility for abuse. No document of liberty, however, could possibly proscribe all potential for misuse of those liberties without actually eliminating them in the process. It has been said that communism is nothing more than democrasy with all potential for abuse legislated out. As a result of the Executive Orders listed above, in concert with the War and Emergency Powers Act, there exists within the United States a government within a government. It is hidden, semi-covert in nature, and does not recognize the U.S. Constitution or its constraints. It functions autonomously as a form of totalitarian regime in suspended animation, awaiting its time of activation. It is a government driven by presidential Executive Orders to be executed by federal agencies run by non-elected officials. Executive Orders amount to ready-wired buttons by which the president can suspend constitutional rights at any moment he determines that a "national emergency" exists. The great problem inherent is that no binding legal definition exists asto what constitutes a "national emergency". That definition lies entirely with the Chief Executive. When he declares a state of emergency, the aforementioned documents can be used to activate whatever federal agency is most suited to address the emergency. Those agencies include, but are not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). Because this nation is under a continual state of emergency due to the War and Eergency Powers Act, and the Constitution granting somewhat elastic powers of emergency in "cases of rebellion or invasion", the president can circumvent such fundamental protections as thePosse Comatatus Act which forbids the use of the military against U.S. citizens. This slow motion decay of constitutional rights was not unforeseen by the Founding Fathers. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison once wrote, I believe there are more instances of abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations...." The Constitution of the United States of America, once the hub of American law and freedoms, has been moved to the position of the hubcap. It has become merely an ornamental relic that serves no real function other than that of making the American people feel as if the document still matters to those who govern. It appears that the modern electorate chooses their leaders for the same purpose that they attend a magic show. Their actual desire seems to be that the performer deceive them. "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their money; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" Jer 5:31 Copyright c 1997, The WINDS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. http://www.TheWinds.org **************************************************************** Chris W. Stark Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative e-mail: gunowner@onramp.net Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner Support "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington & Texas." ***************************** ***Become a member of GOA TODAY!*** ***************************** **************************************************************** "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. ....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." -William L. Shirer, author of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" p.259 .....they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!! -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: EXECUTIVE ORDERS: Bonfire for the Constitution (Part II) (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1997 07:52:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Chris W. Stark - GOA Texas Rep." EXECUTIVE ORDERS: Bonfire for the Constitution (Part II) The Velvet Hammer In the event of a national emergency declared by the President of the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would be invested with the power to suspend the U.S. Constitution and is positioned to take control of the United States government and its citizens. As discussed in Part I of this report, the authorityof eleven preceding Presidential Executive Orders (1939 through 1991) has been consolidated into Order #12919. This concentration of executive authority invests FEMA with absolute power over: All United States communications facilities (EO 10995) Electrical power, petroleum, gas, fuels and minerals, public and private (10997) Food supplies, agricultural lands and facilities (10998) Transportation of any kind, including private, and control of seaports, waterways and highways (10999) Civilian labor forces without regard to financial remuneration as authorized under the "DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950" (11000) Health, education and welfare institutions (11001) All airport and air transportation, public, private and commercial (11003) Railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities (11005) Additionally, FEMA, under Executive Order #11002, can order the postmaster general to begin a national registration of all residents of the United States for purposes of control of population movement and relocation. All of the aforementioned powers can be invoked with the stroke of a presidential pen and are free of congressional restrictions or intervention for a period of six months. The practical expression of these powers can be the equivalent of a sentence without trial or jury with no recourse to appeal for at least a half a year. Manylegal and paralegal analysts have seen, in the powers delegated to FEMA during any declared national emergency, the authority to forcibly relocate entire families into federal work camps, even as to the dividing of families and of children from parents. FEMA was created by President Carter under Executive Order #12148. Its legal authorization is Title 2, United States Code 5121 called the "Stafford Act." Within the text of that piece of "legislation" in Subchapter IV, section (B) is contained the wording: "Measures to be undertaken during a hazard (including the enforcement of passive defense regulations prescribed by duly established military or civil authorities, the evacuation of personnel to shelter areas, the control of traffic and panic, and the control and use of lighting and civil communications)."emphasis supplied In a telephone interview with FEMA attorneys, The Winds asked the legal definition of "passive defense regulations" as "prescribed by duly established military or civil authorities." Even FEMA's Counsel General, Michael Hirsh, was unable to give us any definition of those terms. The ambiguity of that wording veiled its meaning from even the highest ranking lawyer in the agency. KEEPING THE LAWS UNCLEAR In the principle document by which the New World Order is implemented, the ambiguity of legal terms is set forth as a necessary quality by which any interpretation desired may be secured. In the nebulous breadth of those ambiguities lies the latitude of interpretation to make laws and regulations say whatever those in authority want them to say. Concerning those laws they claim that they: "...have twisted their interpretations so as to make them contradict each other. We have succeeded in erecting great and magnificent results by perverting the laws. The first result was that the interpretations of the laws actually masked their true intent. Afterwards, those laws were entirely hid from eyes of the governments because it became impossible to make anything out of the tangled web of legislation."emphasis supplied The Winds also asked FEMA's public relations office the primary reasons for the forced evacuation of residents during the recent flooding in North Dakota and the orders (not requests) for some residents to remain in their homes following the recent hurricanes in the southeast. FEMA's response, strangely, did not indicate concern for the safety and well-being of the citizens involved, as one might expect of an agency tasked with the oversight of America's domestic security in time of disaster. Rather, their reasonsfor violating the constitutional rights of those citizens was a hedge against being sued by them or their survivors if they were injured or killed as a result of not being evacuated. Money, not lives, was their expressed justification for removing owners from their homes, in one instance, and commanding them not to leave them, in another. Executive Order #11051 assigns responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning (later to become FEMA), and authorizes all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis or national emergency.emphasis supplied Again, the vagueness of the wording leaves wide the door of interpretation. As to what constitutes an "emergency" the Stafford Act defines it as thus: "Emergency--'Emergency' means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States."emphasis supplied KEEPING DISSIDENT GROUPS QUIET Former Chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division, General Frank Salzedo, once stated that his interpretation of FEMA's role is, among other things, "prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." The Constitution, on the other hand, states: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The question arises as to how General Salzedo's statement could survive being filtered through the First Amendment. What he said amounts to "government-speak" for the potential of creating an American Tienanmen Square. One of the Executive Orders gathered into Clinton's EO #12919 was an Order signed by President Nixon known as the "Omnibus Emergency Preparedness Decree". Howard J. Ruff, economist and publisher of The Ruff Times says "Since the enactment of [that] Order, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it." The former slave and Civil War activist, Fredrick Douglas, once said that the limits of a tyrant's power are set by the willingness of the people to tolerate him. During activation of these Executive Orders, FEMA answers only to the National Security Council which answers only to the President, and, as mentioned previously, once these powers are invoked even Congress cannot intervene or countermand them for six months. GUN MOUNTED OVER THE MANTLE The command and control structure for the oversight and administration of these extra-constitutional powers (the teeth to execute and enforce the above orders) is already in place. FEMA is the administrating agency for several top secretfacilities. The most notable is burrowed deep into the bedrock beneath Mount Weather near Berryville, Virginia. Also known as the Western Virginia office of Controlled Conflict Operations, this underground command post was originally constructed for the purpose of housing top officials of the U.S. government during a national emergency such as imminent nuclear war. It is still contained within the "black" budget that does not appear in FEMA's published budgetary documents. Mt. Weather, along with other such secret installations as the one beneath a luxury resort in West Virginia called Greenbrier, officially does not exist. Wallace Stickney, former FEMA director under George Bush, recalled that even the members of Congress approaching his agency to question some budget expenditures were not allowed accessto the knowledge of where the money was directed--and they were the ones responsible for budgetary oversight. Even more astonishing is the fact that Stickney himself was denied such access. He said, "I was aware funding was being passed through but didn't know where it was going--nor did Congress, which demanded to know. Normally, as I understood it, nobody questioned the arithmetic." If a nuclear attack occurred during Stickney's tenure in office, he was not to be included among those privileged to partake in the safety of the underground complex. He would have been required toremain at his post and, in the parlance of the nuclear disaster planners, be cindered. That insecurity for FEMA's current director, James Lee Witt, ended when President Clinton conferred cabinet status on him in February of 1996. There is within government a quasi-legal concept called the "Rule of Necessity". Simply put, this doctrine says that whatever is necessary to preserve the nation against its foes, whether external or internal, will be done--apparently without regard to any violence done to the Constitution. It is to addressthe Rule of Necessity that Executive Orders are created. EOs did not have their beginnings in the desires of American presidents to transform the executive office into a de facto dictatorship. The first Presidential Executive Order was issued by George Washington in 1789, but no numbering system or uniformity was applied until 1907 when the Department of State retroactively designated an EO issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 as Executive Order 1. What has become of this executive privilege since the Civil War has been rather like an insidiously introduced, systemic infection aimed at the total debilitation of the U.S. Constitution.. As to whether these extreme powers of the Executive Branch will actually be implemented--there is an old saying in the theatre that if there is a gun mounted over the fireplace mantle in the first act, it will be used before the end of the final act. It ain't hangin' up there for nothin'. Copyright c 1997, The WINDS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. http://www.TheWinds.org **************************************************************** Chris W. Stark Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative e-mail: gunowner@onramp.net Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner Support "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington & Texas." ***************************** ***Become a member of GOA TODAY!*** ***************************** **************************************************************** "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. ....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." -William L. Shirer, author of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" p.259 .....they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!! -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Prior Knowledge: The OKC Bombing (Part 1) (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1997 07:52:40 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Chris W. Stark - GOA Texas Rep." The Oklahoma Bombing: Witnesses Allege Government's Prior Knowledge and Complicity (Part I) Recent reports surfacing concerning the bombing of the Murrah Building in downtown Oklahoma City are causing many observers to take notice. The trial of Terry Nichols is just beginning, but the truth of the matter will likely remain hidden under smoke and storytelling. As the evidence mounts, a picture emerges which does not weigh favorably for government agencies. The surviving witnesses, and some involved in the investigation who are mysteriously dying one by one, reveal that the government had infiltrated certain anti-government organizations. It is said that the government agents encouraged the use of violence against the government , and in certain cases seemed to take the lead in pushing their "fellow comrades" into the use of violence toward the government. As the smoke begins to clear, there seems to be a trail of evidenceindicating the Oklahoma Federal building was being set up for a sting operation. Something went very wrong and the building, with its occupants, was allowed to go up in smoke. With the massive amount of evidence to the contrary, the judge in the McVeigh trial made it plain, he wouldn't permit anyone to call witnesses or to introduce evidence contrary to the governments claim of "one man, one bomb". THE INVESTIGATION 1. The Cover-up In a recent interview with General Benton Partin, The WINDS asked the retired military explosives expert about the county grand jury that is looking into evidence of the government's prior knowledge in the Oklahoma City bombing along with many other troubling aspects in the case. General Partin's response was, "With the Grand Jury, I think everything possible will be done to thwart it, to keep them from indicting people, but, hopefully, they'll go Partin recently gave six hours of testimony before the grand jury. He said "the Governor vociferously opposed the independent investigation, so Charles Key (State Representative) filed to get an Oklahoma County Grand Jury. The judge turned it down and he appealed it to the Superior Court and the Superior Court remanded it back to the judge telling him he had to do it. Then the judge appealed to the state Supreme Court and a five man panel unanimously sent it back to the judge and said you have to do it. His only option was to go to the (United States) Supreme Court. But you can see the opposition there, from some of the powers that be. But there's no question, there's been a massive cover-up and its still going." Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key spoke to The WINDS on September 29 saying, "there are some documents (relating to the OKC bombing) that are right at our fingertips, that would be like the smoking gun. It would blow this whole thing open." In all of the smoke, did the whole truth come out at the McVeigh trial? Will the Nichol's trial be any more honest? Are these trials an accurate representation of what actually occurred on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City? Or wasthat trial another massive effort by the government to impose the ONE MAN, ONE BOMB story on America? Is the nation in the midst of a massive cover-up with great and sinister implications? The jury in the Timothy McVeigh trial seemed to believe it was just that simple, one man, one bomb but they made that judgment with only partial evidence. However, there are others, many of whom have invested a great deal of time, expertise, and research into this investigation who believe the evidence paints a far different picture. It would be worthwhile to review some of the original data that was revealed before the OFFICIAL VERSION had been created. LIVE REPORTS FROM GROUND ZERO 2. The Witnesses During extensive live coverage, several television news reporters gave an exhaustive running chronology of the disaster. One reporter said, "Therewere more bombs set to go off, according to Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)". "The Justice Department is reporting that a second explosive device has been found in the A.P. Murrah Building in downtown Oklahoma City." Another stated "what we were told at the scene a few minutes ago was that in fact two different explosive devices were found in addition to the one that went off, a total of three bombs. You see the utter devastation that the one explosion caused, here's what we're starting to learn about the succession, or what someone obviously hoped would be a succession of explosions. "The first bomb that was in the federal building did go off. It did the damage that you see right here. The second explosive was found and diffused, the third explosive was found and they are working on it right now as we speak. Both the second and third explosives are larger than the first. "Through the good work of munitions experts and explosive sniffing dogs, further tragedy has almost certainly been averted here." Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating in a live telecast stated "One devicehas been deactivated, apparently there is another device. Obviously whatever did the damage to the Murrah Building was a tremendous...a very sophisticated explosive device." Another reporter said "they are saying that this is the work of a sophisticated group. This is a very sophisticated device and it had to have been done by an explosives expert." Other reports revealed "the one and one half hour delay in the rescue work due to the second and third bombs being discovered." Firemen wept after having to abandon individuals whom they were endeavoring to pull from the rubble, when the area had to be evacuated due to the discovery of additional explosive devices. One rescue worker said the woman he had been trying to extricate from the collapsed building had expired before he was able to return. Dr. Randall Heather, a terrorism expert says "We should find out a lot when the bombs are taken apart. I think it was a great stroke of luck that we actually have diffused bombs. It is through the bomb material that we will be able to track down who committed this atrocity." These reports were made during the first few hours after the blast. Given a little time the story was carefully altered. Instead of a sophisticatedexplosive devise, it was a crude fertilizer bomb. Instead of a sophisticated group with explosives experts, it was a single individual with nondescript skills, acting independently. EXPERT EVALUATION 3. The Facts The WINDS asked General Partin, what level of damage could have been expected from a 4800 pound fertilizer bomb. He said that "it would have blown in the glass in the front of the building, and it would have taken out some of the flooring in the first and second floors, maybe a little piece of the third floor. I don't think you would have collapsed a single column." (Actual damage included the collapse of 8 columns.) "Dr. Rodger Raubach, who took his Ph.D. in physical chemistry and served on the research faculty at Stanford University, says General Partin's assessment is absolutely correct. I don't care if they pulled up a semi-trailer with 20 tons of ammonium nitrate; it wouldn't do the damage we saw there" (New American Aug.1995). General Partin said "my analysis proved conclusively that there were demolition charges in the building. At least 4, and there were three other (5 gallon cans) of fulminated mercury that were removed from the building that had fuses set to go off with the explosion but didn't go (off). Three others, and that would have brought down most of the rest of the building. CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE DESTROYED 4. Strange Practices An independent investigator based in Oklahoma City has made some interesting observations regarding the handling of the crime scene and the crucial evidence. "Every time we have had a tragedy in this country, whether it's a pipe bomb going off, whether it's a plane going down, or a building blown up, in the past, the precedent has been that you go in there, and you put it back together piece by piece, even the pipe bombs, to get a signature, so you can understand how it was done, who did it, and if they do it again, you'll know how to catch them, plus you might be able to head it off. "Well guess what, in Oklahoma City, they've violated every one of those precedence rules, and they still are. They are still not doing this investigation properly. Why does it need to be done? In order to find out who did it, and how it was done so we can protect people's lives in the future. By asking for a proper investigation, you get away from all this conspiracy, anti-government stuff that Clinton, and Congress, and the press has been throwing at everyone that asks legitimate questions, questions that have always been asked before in terrorist activities. But now if you ask, you're anti-government." (Pat Breilly Independent Investigator) There were many people who vocally opposed the demolition of the damaged federal building; General Partin was one. "I originally tried to get Senator Nichol's office to get the National Guard in Oklahoma to do an independent investigation because I knew they were lying about what had happened", he said. "Then I turned out a technical report, this is while the building was still standing, that (report) was delivered to 75 Senators and Congressmen, trying to get them to take action to keep the building from coming down because I knew they would bring it down as soon as possible to cover up the evidence. A careful examination of the collapsed column bases would readily reveal a failure mode produced by a demolition charge" as compared to damage from a fertilizer bomb. This evidence would be critical in determining the cause of the damage to the building, therefore General Partin considered it a very urgent matter to delay the demolition of the damaged structure until a careful examination could be made. Just 5 days after the release of Partin's report calling for a thorough examination of the Murrah building, it was demolished. The primary evidence in this "most deadly terrorist attack" had been destroyed by the government. One knowledgeable investigator said "I don't know who did the damage to the federal building, but I do know who is covering it up." They not only brought down the building, they cleared out the site, they covered the entire site with dirt. They hauled the 200 tons of building wreckage to a land fill and buried the crime scene evidence. Partin further stated, "I was under the impression that it was laid out for further possible inspection, but we went over to the site, and there were guards at the gate; we were not permitted to enter. We were told by people at the site that all of the material was buried." TESTIMONY OF A SURVIVOR 5. Federal Worker Testifies Jane Graham worked for HUD on the 7th floor of the federal building. While viewing a video tape of the original television coverage of the bombing,she noticed men who she had seen in the building the day before and again on the morning of the bombing. They were dressed like the building's maintenance workers, but she had never seen them before. On the morning of the bombing at approximately 8:00 a.m. "these two men were coming out of the stairwell on the first floor. Both were dressed in blue pants and shirts like our maintenance workers. They walked by me andI thought at the time they looked so different from our normal people that are employed in our building." Jane saw three different men in the parking garage beneath the Murrah building who had what she thought was telephone wiring and a block of solidputty colored substance. They had plans of the building they were discussing or arguing. Apparently, there was a disagreement because one of the men was pointing to various areas in the garage. They were talking about the plans of the building. "I assumed they were telephone workers. When they saw me watching them, they took this wiring and whatever else was in their hands and put it into a paper sack, behind the passengers seat in a...faded green station wagon." Jane's office was on the 7th floor, but she had just gone to the 9th when the blast occurred. "In reflecting on this I want to specify that the first bomb,the first impact was a waving effect, like an earthquake, which lasted several seconds. About 6 or 7 seconds later a bomb exploded; there was an entirely different sound and thrust. It was like it came right from the center up, we could feel the floor move. The last thing I remember was looking up and seeing the roof being blown off." These were two distinct events that occurred. The second blast was not only very very loud, it was also very powerful. Jane gave this testimony as an affidavit. She also talked with the FBI about these incidents, but they showed little interest, only asking if she could positively identify either McVeigh or Nichols. COUNTER TERRORISM STING OPERATION 6. An Operation Gone Wrong Lester Martz, the ATF regional director from Dallas, who is in charge of the Oklahoma City office, admitted to reporters after the bombing, that there was in fact a sting operation underway at that time. When asked if it involved McVeigh he said, "I can neither confirm nor deny that." Terrance Yeakey, an Oklahoma City police officer was one of the first to arrive at the scene of the bombing. His observations of federal agent'sactions there, his direct interactions with his superiors about the "operation gone wrong", and his access to documentation dealing with the bombing, led him to make the following statement . "My guess is the more time an officer has to think about the screw up the more he is going to question what happened... Can you imagine what would be coming down now if that had been our officers who had let this happen? Because it was the feds that did this and not the locals, is the reason it's okay. The sad truth of the matter is that they have so many police officers convinced that by covering up the truth about the operation gone wrong, that they are actually doing our citizens a favor. What I want to know is how many other operations have they had that blew up in their faces? Makes you stop and take another look at Waco." General Partin candidly gives his opinion about the scenario. "There is enough information out there to say without much equivocation, the bombing in Oklahoma was a counter-terrorism sting screwed up. If you plan these things, and some part of them is goofed up, even deliberatelyso, you have to cover for what you've done." Glenn Wilburn an OKC resident who lost two young grandsons in the blast has done extensive research and investigation into the tragedy. He has said, "the truth is they had a sting operation going on here. They (thefeds) were aware of Tim McVeigh, they were aware of Michael Fortier, they were aware of Terry Nichols, well before the bombing. They had a federal informant working within this group, no question about it. He (the informant) was working with these people in the weeks and months before the bombing" INSIDE AGENT 7. Let's Pretend We Are Anti-government Andreas Strassmeir is one of the federal informants who were operating inside the eastern Oklahoma community known as Elohim City. "Andy" Strassmeir, a German national who was in this country illegally, has an interesting history with some very mysterious connections. Glenn Wilburn reveals a part of this history. Some months before the bombing, Strassmeir was stopped in a road block near Elohim City. The owner of the towing company that impounded the vehicle said Andy could not produce a drivers license, had no documentation, his passport had expired, and he was in this country illegally. He was arrested, taken to jail, and his vehicle towed. The next day the owner of the towing service got a call from the governor's office, from the head of the Highway Patrol, from the State Department, from a general at a military base in the Carolinas, and from two lawyers in a conference call, one from Houston, Texas, the other from Germany. All of thecallers told him to release the vehicle immediately along with all of its contents (they were very concerned about the contents of a satchel of documents in the vehicle). Wilburn comments that "if Andy Strassmeir is not protected at the HIGHEST LEVEL, I don't know who is." When his identity is revealed, we may understand why. Strassmeir is the son of the former German Secretary of State under Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The senior Strassmeir was responsible for the peaceful transfer of leadership in Berlin, during the fall of communism. Andy graduated from military academy in 1989 at the age of 27. Less than two years later, he was living at Elohim City, an obscure, far right wing Christian Identity group in rural Oklahoma. ENTER THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR The people of Elohim City were taken in by Andy. Not knowing his real identity, they put him in charge of security for the community, which gave him the opportunity to exploit their paranoia. In November, 1994 he spoke openly and vehemently of his desire "to forcibly act to destroy the United States Government with direct actions and operations such as assassinations, bombings, and mass shootings." Strassmeir proclaimed "the biggest enemy to be the United States Government. [He] forcibly exclaimed that it was time to quit talking andtime to start blowing things up." (Roger G. Charles- PRIOR WARNING) Almost all of the many independent investigators agree that the bombing of the federal building was a government sting operation gone awry. Most say the feds were fully involved in the operation which they had instigated through their inside informants-provocateurs. They say the government informants either create situations that otherwise would not have happened, or they accelerate situations when they are working a targeted group. There was an agreement between Germany's Kohl Government and the Clinton Administration to infiltrate the Neo-Nazi and Aryan Nations movements in this country, and in Germany. Strassmeir was apparently brought in on this undercover operation early in the Clinton Administration. He lived at Elohim City for approximately 3-4 years. During the latter part of his stay there, Timothy McVeigh made many trips to and from the community prior to the bombing, according to investigators. Andy stayed on at Elohim City for months after the bombing, without arrest, and eliciting no interest from the official investigators. Even after being linked by witnesses to Junction City, Kansas, accompanying McVeigh before the bombing, he has never been mentioned by thegovernment prosecution as a possible accomplice or conspirator in the "most deadly terrorist attack in America". The Department of Justice has consistently denied that Strassmeir has any relevance to the bombing whatsoever. He was allowed to quietly slip out of the country into Mexico, and from there to Germany. When you add the ATF to the Elohim City connection, and you look at the communiques and documents pertaining to Elohim City, and you find Lester Martz's name appearing frequently on those documents, the pieces fit together. THE GOVERNMENT DID HAVE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. The government very probably could have stopped the operation, but did not. Therefore, this begs the question, who bears the responsibility for the "deadliest act of terrorism in America"? A few days after the bombing, Carol Howe, another inside government agent at Elohim City told FBI officials she had overheard Andreas Strassmeir and white supremacist Dennis Mahon discuss bombing federal buildings months before the attack. "Why haven't the feds gone out and brought these guys in?" asked Rep. Charles Key. **************************************************************** Chris W. Stark Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative e-mail: gunowner@onramp.net Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner Support "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington & Texas." ***************************** ***Become a member of GOA TODAY!*** ***************************** **************************************************************** "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. ....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." -William L. Shirer, author of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" p.259 .....they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!! -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Prior Knowledge: The OKC Bombing (Part II) (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1997 07:52:52 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Chris W. Stark - GOA Texas Rep." The Oklahoma Bombing: Witnesses Allege Government's Prior Knowledge and Complicity (Part II) STRANGE EVENTS 8. The killing of the witnesses The Oklahoma City bombing has been called the most deadly terrorist attack in America, but a very disturbing series of deaths has continued following the bombing. It isreported that there are eleven such mysterious deaths of witnesses, rescuers, and investigators of that tragic event. This could well be the most deadly cover-up in American history. At the time of the bombing, the rescue workers included police, firemen, medical workers, and local citizens. These individuals risked their lives in the rescue work, but some of the most courageous workers were later singled out for special treatment. The following account focuses on three individuals. A prison guard, a medical doctor, and a police officer. The following documentary is condensed from the research and investigation of Journalist David Hoffman. JOEY GLADDEN- PRISON GUARD "Gladden was a guard at the El Reno Federal Prison where Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were sequestered. While prison officials denied it, Gladden had worked in McVeigh's cell block, and had spoken personally to the bombing defendant." Like Terrance Yeakey, an officer with the Oklahoma City Police Department, Gladden had trouble with his superiors regarding corruption in their departments. "Both Gladden and his supervisor, Charles "Chuck" Mildner, were concerned about corruption at the federal facility. "Mildner was subsequently suspended by Warden Thompson. The well-liked and respected supervisor was getting ready to blow the whistle concerning inside corruption. "Also getting ready to blow the whistle, it seems, was Joey Gladden. Like Mildner, the seven-year Bureau of Prisons (BOP) veteran had a good work record, and was well-liked by his peers. Gladden had also received a Medal of Commendation for his role during a prison riot in October of '95. "Yet, soon after receiving the award, Warden Thompson suddenly switched tracks, instead blaming Gladden for the riot. Gladden was suspended. "Joey Gladden was frightened. The day before his death, the 27-year-old father of two spoke to his first wife, Shelly Walling, and told her, "If anything ever happens to me, I have it all written down...right here in my book." "When she asked him what he was referring to, Gladden hesitated, then responded cryptically: "We don't need to talk about it right now. I don't want you getting mixed up in this too." "Perhaps Joey Gladden's diary entry of November 11, 1995, shortly after his suspension, provides a clue: "What will being persuaded benefit me? I would be persuaded choosing the lesser of two evils.... I will not let pressure from any quarter effect my ability to resist persuasions. I will never make decisions based on fear, anger, or guilt. "Whatever Gladden was involved in, he obviously didn't want his family to be hurt. He explained to Walling that his insurance policy needed to be squared away, and to get "the book" in case anything happened to him. "The book," it turned out, was a lengthy report on corruptionat El Reno Federal Prison which Gladden had been writing. "If Gladden would not speak directly about what he was involved in, his diary entry of October 25, 1995, may provide a glimpse into his troubled mind: "I have seen the Dragon. Every time I see him his scales glow brighter, his eyes glisten maliciously closer, gaping, fanged jawed Demon. I felt his hot breath this time. Faith, heart, and steel saved me from death's icy grasp.... "On January 14, three weeks before his death, Joey Gladden called his mom. "He told me they were trying to kill him," recalled a sobbing Sharon Gladden. "I said, 'Joey, honey, it's just the stress of everything...' And he said, 'Mom, the Federal Government has power--you don't know the power. They could assassinate the president of the United States....' "I said, 'honey, things like that don't happen in real life.' "'Mom, just forget it,' Joey replied. 'Don't ask me about it. The least you know about it, the better you are' "And three weeks later he was dead!" screamed Sharon Gladden, tears streaming from her eyes." DR. DON CHUMLEY- MEDICAL DOCTOR One of the first doctors at the scene of the bombing was Don CHUMLEY, who operated the Broadway Medical Clinic located about half a mile from the Murrah Federal Building. "Shaun Jones, Chumley's step-son, was assisting him. Jones recalled the scene: "Chumley, who was working with Dr. Ross Harris, was one of the few doctors who actually went into the Federal Building, while the others waited outside. He had helped many people, including seven babies, whom he later pronounced dead." Dr. Chumley, like many others, was strongly impacted by the tragic experience. He was a man of integrity and character, and when asked to participate in a questionable and outright deceptive act, he adamantly refused. An experienced pilot with over 600 hours flying time, Chumley's skills were never in question. Yet he was killed five months later when his Cessna 210 crashed near Amarillo, Texas in what are called "mysterious circumstances." "It's a pretty mysterious circumstance. There's no apparent reason--there's nothing we can think of," said Jones. "It was rumored that Chumley was about to go public with some damning information. According to Michelle Moore, who has investigated the bombing, Chumley was asked to bandage two federal agents who falsely claimed to have been trapped in the building that morning. Sincethe pair was obviously not hurt, Chumley refused. When the agents petitioned another doctor at the scene, Chumley intervened, threatening to report them. "When Chumley learned of the government's hastily planned cover-up, he apparently decided to go public. It seems he never got the chance." TERRANCE YEAKEY-POLICE OFFICER The following, are excerpts from an Oklahoma City Policeman' sletter to a bombing victim whom he had befriended. Officer Terrance Yeakey, was one of the first rescuers at the scene of the bombing. As the letter indicates, he saw many disturbing things, and much evidence thatis contradictory to the OFFICIAL VERSION of the story. The letter begins,"The man that you and I were talking about in the pictures, I have made the mistake of asking too many questions as to his role in the bombing, and was told to back off. I was told by several officers he was an ATF agent who was overseeing the bombing plot and at the time the photos were taken he was calling in his report of what had just went down! Luke Franey (ATF agent who saidhe was in the building at the time of the explosion) was not in the building at the time of the blast. I know this for a fact. I saw him! I also saw full riot gear worn, with rifles in hand, why? "Knowing what I know now, and understanding fully just what went down that morning, makes me ashamed to wear a badge from Oklahoma City's Police Department. I took an oath to uphold the Law and to enforce the Lawto the best of my ability. This is something I cannot honestly do if I keep my silence as I am ordered to do. "My guess is, the more time an officer has to think about the screw up, the more he is going to question what happened. Can you imagine whatwould be coming down now if that had been our officers who had let this happen? Because it was the feds that did this and not the locals, is the reason it's okay. If I tried to explain it to you the way it was explained to me, and the ridiculous reason for having our own police departments falsify their reports to their fellow officers, to the citizens of the city and to our country, you would understand why I feel the way I do about all this. "I truly believe there are other officers like me out there who would not settle for anything but the truth; it is just a matter of finding them. The only true problem as I see it is, who do we turn to then? I believe that a lot of the problems the officers are having right now are because some of them know what really happened and can't deal with it, and others like myself made the mistake of trusting the one person we were supposed to be able to turn to (the Chaplain) only to be stabbed in the back. "I would consider it to be an insult to my profession as a police officer and to the citizens of Oklahoma for ANY of the City, State or Federal agents that stood by and let this happen, to be recognized as anything other thantheir part in participation, in letting this happen. For those who ran from the scene to change their attire to hide the fact that they were there, should be judged as cowards. "You were right all along and I am truly sorry I doubted you and your motives about recording history. Everyone was behind you until you started asking questions as I did, as to how so many federal agents arrived at the scene at the same time. I worry about you and your young family because of some of the statements that have been made towards me, a police officer! I am not worried for myself, but for you andyour group. I would not be afraid to say at this time that you and your family could be harmed if you get any closer to the truth. At this time I think for your well being it is best for you to distance yourself and others from those of us who have stirred up too many questions about the altering and falsifying of the federal investigation's reports. "It is vital that people like you, Edye Smith and others keep asking questions and demanding answers for the actions of our federal government and law enforcement agencies that knew before-hand and participated in the cover-up. Don't make the mistake as I did and ask the wrong people. "If our history books and records are ever truly corrected about that day, it will show this and maybe even some lame excuse as to why it happened, but I truly don't believe it will from what I now know to be the truth. I am sad to say that I believe my days as a police officer are numbered because of all of this." Tragically, just two days before he was to be awarded the Medal of Valor for his efforts in the rescue effort, he was found dead. The OFFICIAL VERSION called his death suicide. The following facts in the case tell a different story: "He kept telling me it wasn't what I thought it was," said his ex-wife, Tonia Rivera. The story of the reluctant hero was nothing more than a "thin veil of truth" which covered up a "mountain of deceit." There came a time about mid-year, where they were forcing him into going to these award ceremonies. As in, 'Yes, you could not go, but we'll make your life hell.' 'I'm no hero,' he would say. 'Nobody that had anything to do with helping those people in that bombing are heroes.' "Shortly after the bombing, Yeakey appeared at his ex-wife's. 'About two weeks before his death he came to my apartment trying to give methese insurance policies,' said Rivera, 'he sat on my living room couch and cried and told me how he had a fight with [his supervisors] Lt. Randall and Maj. Upchurch. He did not tell me what that entailed but he was scared. He was crying so badly he was shaking. "He wouldn't totally voice whatever it was,' recalled Rivera. 'It was like he'd be just about to tell me he'd want to spill his guts - and then he stopped, and he just cried. And that's when he kept insisting that I take the insurance policy. Why would a guy tell you to take a life insurance policy, knowing it wouldn't pay for a suicide? He obviously knew he was in danger.' At 9:00 a.m., May 8, 1996, Officer Yeakey was seen exiting his Oklahoma City apartment with nine boxes of videos and files. He then drove to the police station where he had a fight with his supervisors. He was told to 'drop it' or he'd 'wind up dead.' Driving straight to a storage locker he maintained in Kingfisher, he secured his files. What were in the files? According to one of Rivera's sources, incriminating photos and videos of the bombed out building. Perhaps more. "While it is not known exactly what transpired next, at approximately 6:00 p.m. that evening, Deputy Sheriff Mike Ramsey noticed an abandoned vehicle in a field. 'Immediately hair stood up on the backof my neck,' said the deputy. Ramsey came upon the empty car which he immediately recognized as Yeakey's. There was blood on both seats, and a razor blade lying on the dash. Yeakey was nowhere to be found. The deputy immediately called for a homicide investigator, and taped off the scene. Police dogs located Yeakey's body in a ditch, a mile and-a-half away. "Dr. Larry Balding, Oklahoma City's Chief Medical Examiner, quickly ruled the death a "suicide." Apparently Yeakey had tried to cut himself in the wrists, neck and throat, then after losing approximately two pints of blood, got out of his car, walked amile and-a-half over rough terrain, crawled under a barbed-wire fence, waded through a culvert, then lay down in a ditch and shot himself in the head.The Oklahoma City Medical Examiner's report described numerous "superficial" lactations on the wrists, arms, throat and neck, and a single bullet wound to the right temple. "If Officer Yeakey's death was anything more than a suicide, the OCPD didn't go to any great lengths to find out. While his death occurred in El Reno the OCPD took over the crime scene, squeezing the El Reno Police Department out of the picture. Although forensics are also standard procedure in the event of a violent or suspicious death, especially that of a police officer, Yeakey's car was never dusted for prints. No autopsy was ever conducted. "Dr. Larry Balding, who signed off on the Yeakey report is adamant. 'I can tell you unequivocally and without a doubt that there was no other ME report.' YET, another Medical Examiner's report - quickly redated and hidden from public view - showed a face that was bruised and swollen; blood on the body and clothes was not the dead man's blood type; and multiple deep lacerations filled with grass and dirt, as though the body had been dragged a distance. According to Rivera, Maj. Upchurch denied that Yeakey's throat was slashed at all; yet she was later told by a sympathetic police dispatcher that his throat was indeedslashed- deeply. "The report also showed another curious thing. The bullet had entered just above and in front of the right ear, and had exited towards the bottom of the left ear. Apparently, whoever held the gun held it at a downward angle. A person shooting themself would tend to hold the gun at an upward angle. "Perhaps the most revealing evidence was that the wound did not have a 'Stellat,' the tell-tale star shape caused by the dissipating gasses from the gun's muzzle. At the close range of a suicide weapon, such markings would be clearly present. And if this weren't strange enough, Yeakey's diet-related condition would have made him too weak to walk the mile and-a-half from his car to where his body was found -especially after losing two to three pints of blood. "In a letter to Police Chief Sam Gonzales dated September 4,1996, Rivera writes: 'I have many questions regarding the investigation. What type of weapon was used to inflict the gunshot wound to his head? Who located the body? How could the cause of death be determined with such confidence with the multitude of injuries to his body and how did he walk the distance indicated with the great loss of blood from razor cuts not only to both wrists, but both his forearms as well as two razor cuts to his neck? Not only did he walk this distance, but he struggled with barb wire fencing to reach his chosen destination to die then inflicted the gunshot wound to himself? I request that a copy of the investigative report of his death be made available to me.' Gonzales didn't respond. Their investigation remained sealed. Not even the family was allowed to see it. "Yet while attending a social function, Rivera claims her sister had a chance encounter with the mortician who worked on Yeakey's body. She was discussing the strange inconsistencies of his death with someone at the party, when the mortician, not knowing the woman was Rivera's sister, spoke up. 'That sounds just like a police officer we workedon in Oklahoma City,' he said. When asked if that man happened to be Terrance Yeakey, the mortician 'freaked'. "When pressed, he told the shocked relative that the dead man's wrists contained rope burns and handcuff marks. A former FBI agent and police officer, the mortician said that Yeakey's lacerations were already sewn up when the body arrived from the Medical Examiner's office. Dr. Balding's response to this was that the marks were merely 'skin slippage', resulting from the natural decomposition of the body. Apparently those covering up his death had not counted on this particular mortician's testimony. "Was Terrance Yeakey tortured? Was he murdered, then made to look like a suicide? Did he know something he wasn't supposed to know? Like Don Chumley, Terrance Yeakey was one of the first rescuers in the Murrah Building on April 19. Had he seen something he wasn't supposed to see? Had he heard something he wasn't supposed tohear? Rivera's confidential source 'described in intimate detail,' the state of the dead man's car. The seats had been completely unbolted, the floor-boards ripped up, and the side panels removed, all in an apparent effort to find the incriminating documents. "One afternoon, while the family was at Police Headquarters, ano fficer who Rivera described as Yeakey's 'only true friend,' pulled them off to the side, and whispered 'They killed him.' Yet Rivera's sources have warned her away from pursuing an independent investigation. They said, 'two U.S. Senators would go down' if she pursued it. One of them reportedly told Rivera he wouldn't pursue it 'even if his own mother was in the ground.' (Condensed from the forthcoming book by David Hoffman, OKC Bombing-The Politics of THE FUTURE IS NOW Today we hear much about global unity, global security, and the global society which we are now entering. The concept is instilled that the horrors of the holocaust, the dark uncertainties of the cold war, the blackness of tyranny will be vanquished by the dawning of the enlightened world society. Tragedies like the Oklahoma City bombing will be forever banished. Support of the United Nation's plan, it is claimed, will permit the establishment of world peace. If all the forces of opposition to its full empowerment are quelled, the UN, will in its own benevolent way, secure our future. But how will such an undertaking be accomplished? The peace which is to be imposed on Americans and the world, will come in much the same way in which those in Oklahoma City were brought into agreement with the OFFICIAL STORY, by force, coercion, torture, and death. It has been written: "Our State, marching along the path of peaceful conquest, has the right to replace the horrors of war by less noticeable and more satisfactory means. That is, by the sentences of death that are necessary to maintain the terror which leads toblind submission. ... We execute men in such a way that no one but we of the brotherhood will ever suspect it. Not even the victims themselves know of our death sentence and what is happening. They all just die when required and it appears as if from a normal kind of illness. Knowing this, even the brotherhood themselves dare not protest." THE PROTOCOLS The agenda of the United Nations is founded on the very principles we have seen demonstrated in OKC. As the United States and the world looks to the new millennium, it can expect an escalation of these tactics to be used on an increasing number of "targeted individuals". In the crushing and merciless force used at Waco. In the clearly calculated "bullet to the head" of the mother at Ruby Ridge. In the deception of the "guardians of justice", that lead to the deaths of 168, fathers, mothers, and children in the federal building bombing. In the cover-up that has been relentlessly pursued by those in charge of the investigation. In the brutal manner in which those who would expose the deception have been dealt with. In the trial that reinforced the cover-up and protection of those in high positions of trust who were responsible for the operation. In all of this can be seen the true character of the powers that are pushing the world into the scheme of globalism. "Secure in your wicked ways, you thought no one could see you. Therefore evil and calamity will overtake you, and you will not be able to avert it." Is 47:10-11. "Justice is turned away and righteousness stands far off. For truth is fallen in the streets, the City's forum, and uprightness cannot enter the courts of justice." Is. 59:14 Copyright c 1997, The WINDS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. http://www.TheWinds.org **************************************************************** Chris W. Stark Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative e-mail: gunowner@onramp.net Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner Support "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington & Texas." ***************************** ***Become a member of GOA TODAY!*** ***************************** **************************************************************** "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. ....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." -William L. Shirer, author of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" p.259 .....they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!! -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Cross Pollination Date: 17 Oct 1997 07:09:24 PST On Oct 17, NMMJR@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] In a message dated 97-10-17 01:37:53 EDT, someone writes: << IMHO, education, and the funding thereof, is the responsibility of the child's parents, period. It is outright theft to support taxing your neighbors' homes to pay for the education of your child. >> OK, this isn't on topic for fap, but everyone who agrees with this statement should check out the web site www.sepschool.org (The Separation of School & State Alliance). I like to see pro-freedom groups crosspollinate. :-) For freedom, Nick [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Hearst to publish gun series Date: 17 Oct 1997 11:07:02 +0000 This Sunday, October 19, the Hearst Corporation will be starting a series of articles on Guns and Violence in America. I know, through ads, that these will be running in the Houston Chronicle (we=92re not liberal, we=92re moderate), a Hearst publication. I suspect the series will run in other Hearst publications around the country. I do not anticipate that these people will have lots of nice things to say about my rights and responsibilities but I look forward to reading the articles anyway. Even more so, I look forward to responding to these articles and hope to see other enlightened responses in the Chronicle=92s op-ed pages in the coming weeks. The Chronicle=92s web site is www.chron.com God, I miss the Houston Post. Chuck =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D "In guns we trust" - Kenny Sumner, Knob Creek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: An Open Letter To Washington Voters About I-676 Date: 18 Oct 1997 14:11:22 -0400 (EDT) October 18, 1997 Dear Washington Voters: First and foremost, allow me to thank you for being such gracious hosts when I served in the 3rd Battalion, 39th Infantry, 1st Brigade and the 9th MI Company of the Army's 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis from 1977 to 1981. Those were some of the best years of my life, thanks in good part to the hospitality and kindness of many of you. My memories of Washington are most certainly fond ones ... I hope to be able to visit your beautiful state once again someday so that I may show my wife and two children why Washington is prized as a great place to live. I am writing today to express grave concern about I-676, an initiative which is going to appear on your ballot in November. Although the proponents of I-676 are attempting to paint the initiative as a "reasonable step in the right direction" to "keep society safer" by mandating tangled, bureaucratic firearms safety training courses and promoting widespread use of so-called trigger locks to render firearms "safe", the harsh truth is that I-676 has nothing whatsoever to do with enhancing "public safety" or with decreasing unsafe storage or handling of firearms. I-676 is all about "distrust." I-676 is all about "control." I-676 is all about diverting public focus away from evil criminals who commit violent crimes and on increasing public focus on guns as inanimate instruments which the proponents of I-676 view (irrationally) as objects which merit demonization. Please take note of the ongoing demonization of opponents of I-676. (Oh, and if you are not busy, please send me $1 in cash each time time you hear opponents of I-676 derided, defamed and described as every possible variant of "right wing extremist" during coming weeks. I will donate that armored car full of money to my family's church to feed hungry parish families in true need as the cold New England winter approaches.) Backers of I-676 are likely well meaning ladies and gentlemen, but the bottom line is that they do not trust YOU, their neighbors and fellow Washingtonians, to behave responsibly when handling, carrying, storing or using firearms. Yes, Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. and local supporters of I-676 are chronic "distrusters" of their fellow Americans. How profoundly sad. And how totally unnecessary. What have so many Washington residents who own firearms done to merit being * feared * by proponents of I-676 and Sarah Brady? In a word, nothing. But realize that all law abiding gun owners in Washington are easier targets for unworkable, unwieldy Clintonesque governmental control mechanisms than violent criminals who laugh and smirk at hand-wringing "controllers" and who merely shoot well intentioned but unarmed people who dare to interrupt their business plans. (Now you know why all gun control and ban backers tend to avoid confronting real criminals and gang bangers. It is very dangerous business. Much too dangerous for do-gooders. Oh, my goodness gracious, much too dangerous.) Instead of fearing YOU, their good neighbors, backers of I-676 should join forces with the NRA and responsible gun owners all across Washington to focus public attention on criminals who misuse guns and to promote the NRA's superbly crafted Eddie Eagle firearms safety education program for children, a program which has been lauded for instructing children how to behave if they should ever discover any unattended firearm. My own ten year old daughter can quote chapter and verse from the Eddie Eagle program, and she does not hesitate to inform her peers about "the rules" whenever they come to visit. She is a "no compromise" kind of kid when it comes to gun safety, which is just as it should be. And her Mom and I are of the same mindset. We do not need President Bill Clinton and the First Lady to instruct us how to safeguard our kids or their friends, all of whom we love very much (our kids and friends, that is, not the Clintons.) We, in the same way as Washington's gun owners, are more than capable of making responsible decisions about firearms storage and use without intrusive interference from compulsive controllers who just cannot seem to comprehend that American adults are, well, * adults * , and perfectly capable of running their own lives without governmental babysitting. There is no doubt in my mind that backers of I-676 will trot out a few "bleacher cops" (as opposed to real street cops) who will pose with Sarah Brady and her I-676 cheerleaders flown in from D.C. And backers of I-676 will probably also trot out a small group of "I'm not a doctor but I play one on T.V." M.D. types who will scowl, furrow their eyebrows and pontificate about what they call "gun violence" (when two guns attack one another?) in front of media cameras. Just remember to keep matters in perspective and to recall that the persons opposed to the passage of I-676, e.g., street cops, NRA members, responsible Washington residents of all ethnic, socio-economic, religious and national backgrounds, are working diligently to protect YOUR FREEDOM to make pragmatic decisions about how best to run your own lives. Before you vote in November, ask yourselves if you want to vote in favor of an initiative which was drawn up by people whose mantra is, "We do not trust YOU at all." Ask yourselves if you want to vote in favor of an initiative which was drawn up by people who want to control YOUR lives in a way which will compromise YOUR ability to gain access to a loaded firearm "in extremis", people who are most certainly not going to be standing by YOUR side to defend YOU or to unlock YOUR inaccessible gun if armed criminals enter YOUR homes in the middle of the night to take YOUR valuables and possibly YOUR lives and the lives of YOUR children. In summary, please remember that I-676 says, "WE DO NOT TRUST YOU!" to all of you. I encourage you to say "no" to the fear mongers who want you to distrust one another. Just before you vote, pause and ask yourselves two simple questions: 1. What have I done to merit the distrust of backers of I-676? (The answer is most likely: "NOTHING!") 2. What aspect of my private life will backers of I-676 next invade and attempt to control? Where and when will they stop trying to run my life? (The answer is most likely: THEY WON'T EVER STOP!") Say "yes" to trusting each other. Say "no" to distrust and control. Say "yes" to preservation of precious freedom. Send a message that Washington voters are responsible adults who respect other responsible adults, not children who need to be babysat by psychobabbling social engineers who truly believe that "it takes a village" to raise a child. (My wife and I are doing just fine, minus Hillary's "villagers", thank you very much.) Say "yes" to TRUST and FREEDOM. Say "no" to oppressive control. Vote "NO" on I-676. All Americans' eyes will be focused upon you. We are confident that you will do the right (no, Sarah Brady, * not * the "right wing") thing. (Contrary to popular belief, we freedom lovers do have senses of humor, unlike those anxiety-riddled pro-I-676 do-gooders who fear YOUR freedom so much that they have may have forgotten how to laugh and how to smile.) Respectfully, Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Washington Voters About I-676 (fwd) Date: 18 Oct 1997 15:23:36 PST Chris, I took the liberty of forwarding your post to a couple of local lists, here in Washatonia. Here's a responce. Dave's the Journalist who originally dug up the facts on the 29 Palms BS. On Oct 18, Dave Workman wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Re: Chris Ferris' open letter: I think that just about covers it, Chris. We are besieged by an enemy that is relentless in its pursuit of our freedoms. With your help, we shall prevail. Dave [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ____________________________________________________________________________ An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: RE: A question from a high school kid (fwd) Date: 18 Oct 1997 08:31:26 -0700 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCDC11.214472E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Lew Glendenning] Boyd said the tax burden is about 55%. The actual government burden is closer to 90%, if you count the taxes = embedded in all of the items you buy. Wheat is taxed a lot of times on = the way to being bread on your table, whether or not your state taxes = groceries. The tractor used to plow the field had sales tax on it, = fertilizer and taxes on the farmer's income; sales, diesel fuel and road = and income taxes for hauler; sales, property, corporate income, ... = taxes on the miller; and the baker and the grocer. Think about a world where goods cost 10% of what they do now, and = realize that poverty is government's grandest achievement. Lew ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCDC11.214472E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IicEAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAsAEAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHJvY0BtYWlsLnhtaXNz aW9uLmNvbQBTTVRQAHJvY0BtYWlsLnhtaXNzaW9uLmNvbQAAAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA AB4AAzABAAAAFgAAAHJvY0BtYWlsLnhtaXNzaW9uLmNvbQAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEw AQAAABgAAAAncm9jQG1haWwueG1pc3Npb24uY29tJwACAQswAQAAABsAAABTTVRQOlJPQ0BNQUlM LlhNSVNTSU9OLkNPTQAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAAFgAAAHJvY0BtYWlsLnhtaXNz aW9uLmNvbQAAAAIB918BAAAASQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHJvY0BtYWlsLnht aXNzaW9uLmNvbQBTTVRQAHJvY0BtYWlsLnhtaXNzaW9uLmNvbQAAAAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAA AgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAAglcAQSAAQAsAAAAUkU6IEEgcXVlc3Rpb24gZnJvbSBhIGhpZ2ggc2No b29sIGtpZCAoZndkKQCRDgEFgAMADgAAAM0HCgASAAgAHwAaAAYANwEBIIADAA4AAADNBwoAEgAI ABkAFAAGACsBAQmAAQAhAAAARDcyOUQxQ0JDQjQ3RDExMTk0RDYwMEEwMjRERjMzMkYALQcBA5AG ALgFAAAhAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAAAAAA QAA5ADCkvOXa27wBHgBwAAEAAAAsAAAAUkU6IEEgcXVlc3Rpb24gZnJvbSBhIGhpZ2ggc2Nob29s IGtpZCAoZndkKQACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvNva5a3L0SnYR8sR0ZTWAKAk3zMvAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUA AABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEwAAAHJsZ2xlbmRlQGFsaW5rLm5ldAAAAwAGENuOZjkDAAcQDAIA AB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAExFV0dMRU5ERU5OSU5HQk9ZRFNBSURUSEVUQVhCVVJERU5JU0FCT1VUNTUl VEhFQUNUVUFMR09WRVJOTUVOVEJVUkRFTklTQ0xPU0VSVE85MCUsSUZZT1VDT1VOVFRIRVRBWEUA AAAAAgEJEAEAAACMAgAAiAIAAHsDAABMWkZ1q1Q45QMACgByY3BnMTI1FjIA+Atgbg4QMDMznQH3 IAKkA+MCAGNoCsBgc2V0MCAHEwKAfbMKgAjIIDsJbw4wNQKA2QqBdWMAUAsDYwBBC7YPCrEKhAqE CzBsaTM2kQwTIFtMB9FHbAnwrQEAbgMADyBdAzBiAUACaRFgIEJveWQgRnMLcBlAdGhlGaBhWHgg YghwGAEgBAAgTwGgCGAFQBQAJS4VulQTGcEA0HR1B0AgZ2/edgSRB4ACMBopYwkAETABBcB0byA5 MCUs8RqQZiB5CGAeIAhgHWH7GbUHkWUG0AmAAQAZQAuANRrAbAMgbx8wGbJpdE8gkAQgH1IaMHku GPBXPRnAYQVAGqEgMhlAYSA/CQAFQCGSB3MCIBmjd2G+eR6SILAYQRogCXBhGUC/JOEfUR6BAaAX 0B8AdxnAtxmxBcAFsW4kISazcwGQ5yIQICUJwG9jBnEHkCLR2RwydHIccQWxdREwGZFbHrALUG8H 4BmyZgiQbP8ZQBEAGUIX0CNzJNIiAB8A7mYEkCSAFtB6HnEAcBmRmyBDJOVmCsAHgHInBCC3C4AF oAeAOyyUHwBkKdH/LCAr8ApQAyAuYgNgJlEuYl8wBCAlAhAFwBEAdRfQctUwZ3ADYHAtwXkfAAWh 3nAFsCjSMAQfAC42QC6cHm0DEDPDLmMZwWJha98uNhnBKXQbbQuAaxrFI/D+dwWwLDEncQlwHNEE cB4R9x5QBUAPQCUhgidwIzEZse0lcGQesCggdx8AMbMjIP8uAhmhIzE1UB0BNOAakhzo/y/RCcAu YQeQOwEQ8AiQHQD/HUIbaxeBFPEVoQNgIhAcgC8Y8ArjCoAR8QBEoAMAEBABAAAAAwAREAAAAAAD AIAQ/////0AABzAwnnoL2tu8AUAACDAwnnoL2tu8AQsAAIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOF AAAAAAAAAwACgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAAWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAABShQAAtw0AAB4AJYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADguMAADACaA CCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAL4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAA AAAAAwAwgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADADKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AAAYhQAAAAAAAB4AQYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAEKACCAG AAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgBDgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA OIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAAwANNP03AAAHPQ== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCDC11.214472E0-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: White House may have altered tapes Date: 19 Oct 1997 22:24:02 -0500 White House may have altered tapes, GOP lawmaker charges=20 Copyright =A9 1997 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1997 Reuters=20 =95 More on the campaign finance hearings. WASHINGTON (October 19, 1997 9:40 p.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) - The White House may have doctored videotapes of President Clinton courting Democratic donors in the 1996 campaign, the head of a House of Representative investigative panel charged Sunday. "We think some of those tapes may have been cut off intentionally, been altered in some way," Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday." At issue are 100 or so hours of tapes turned over to federal investigators last week. Politically embarrassing snippets of them showing Clinton in pursuit of campaign cash blanketed Sunday talk shows. The material was part of a second batch of videotapes of Clinton with donors and fundraisers belatedly made public by the White House in response to subpoenas and document requests. The tapes contain at least two abrupt breaks, said by Clinton aides to reflect the way in which an official cameraman filmed events, not White House editing. "The tapes are going to be analyzed very thoroughly by technicians to pick up sound and so forth that may not be readily apparent when you first look at them," Burton said. "We may have some lip readers to look at some of the tapes to make sure we get the whole story." The White House had no immediate comment on Burton's remarks. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said a Dec. 7, 1995, tape of Clinton linking his own standing in the polls to party-funded television "issue" ads paid for with unregulated money constituted "the smoking gun or the smoking tape" in the affair. "Now we have it from president's own mouth that the purpose of the money being raised by the Democratic National Committee was to promote his own campaign...a violation of federal law," Specter said on "Fox News Sunday." In a related development, Time Magazine reported that Senate Democrats had turned up evidence of possibly illegal coordination between Republican Bob Dole's failed 1996 presidential campaign and supposedly independent non-profit groups. The 200 or so pages of documents turned up on a computer hard drive that went with a Dole campaign aide to her new job at a law firm, Time said. It said the material was delivered Friday to the Senate panel headed by Tennessee Republican Fred Thompson that is investigating 1996 campaign= abuses. By JIM WOLF, Reuters =1A=20 The Second Amendment is the RESET button=20 of the United States Constitution. =20 ---Doug McKay" =20 Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [RightNow] Oct.21 column--JD (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1997 07:51:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- kkeating@premaonline.com, rightnow@rightnow.org, wwilliam@wpgate.gmu.edu, ghostpwr@dmi.net, rush@eibnet.com Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: RightNow@MailList.Net FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JON E. DOUGHERTY USA FEATURES MEDIA CO. ANGST AND ANGER ARE BUILDING AGAINST UNCLE SAM OCTOBER 21--For a couple of months I've noticed a perceptible change in the attitudes of many Americans out in the hinterlands. To coin a phrase from the movie, "Network," folks seem to be "mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore." I think there are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the continual procession of scandals emanating from the White House, and Congress' inaction in dealing with all of it. There is more to this than just the stereotypical image of a rebel without a cause. No, the public's divisiveness over race, politics and social behavior is indeed real, and with each passing day -- prompted by race baiters, hate mongers, small minded thinkers, selfish interests and advocates of bigger government -- the divide between the rulers and the ruled widens. To quote a passage from a recent column by Mr. Pat Buchanan, just about the only thing that has prevented state secession is the close proximity of the aggrieved. In other words, if we all didn't share the same space, then we'd have probably already begun going our separate ways again. Since 1993, the federal government has begun a series of what can only be called attacks on American citizens, killing scores of them in botched raids under dubious legalities. At the same time, Uncle Sam has been steadily building an army of armed federal agents from a plethora of agencies, the number of which now tops 80,000, according to Joseph Farah, journalist and editor of the online newspaper WorldNetDaily. Furthermore, congressional leaders have done nothing except accuse each other of blame, all the while holding "hearings" into various abuses of power that end up yielding nothing in the way of real change. Meanwhile, the real culprits either go unpunished, are promoted, or are allowed to continue unconstitutional and illegal behavior until now, finally, the public is beginning to get fed up with it. It's about time, in my opinion. Better to be fed up now than to let the situation devolve into open warfare later, like some third-world banana dictatorship. Even as I write, a couple more standoffs with state and federal agencies are occurring in different parts of the country. In Roby, IL, a 50-something ex-nurse is holed up in her small trailer, having been surrounded by state police officers after being gassed, shot with bean bags and subjected to days of loud music, a-la Waco, all because she has refused to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. After shutting them out, the woman's kids decided to seek help from the cops, who immediately employed gestapo tactics but have so far elected not to 'storm' the place--maybe because they are surrounded by some 200 other 'concerned citizens'. The woman has so far anticipated every tactic employed against her by wielding a shotgun of her own and demonstrating a proficiency at using it, by wearing extra clothing to deflect the bean bag shots, and by consuming stored foods and staying warm with a portable gas heater. This woman sounds crazy alright; like a fox. Out in Arizona, local townspeople in a small community have been defying an order by the BATF to clear out, all because the agency wants to blow up a weapons plant owned by a man who can list the CIA as one of his former clients. In this case the BATF knows this man personally, knows him to be innocent of the various charges they're considering leveling against him, knows he has ran a legal operation for years, since they have granted him license after license to do so, knows he's cooperated and built devices for the government before, and have already destroyed two other such areas owned by this man. But the business owner and the townspeople have decided not to let the feds have their way with this last installment, because to do so would mean abandoning their homes -- by order of the BATF -- and none of them want to do that. After all, it's their land, their homes. At this time the local sheriff's department has lent cooperation to the BATF, though a few officers now regret it, and are also insisting the townspeople vacate the area so the BATF can "do their jobs." There has been talk of armed resistance if the BATF decides to act boldly, and after talking to the owner of this facility, I believe he's serious. So too are the townspeople, who collectively gave the sheriff and the local BATF agents serious flak at a recent town meeting set up to resolve the matter. It isn't resolved. These sorts of scenarios would not be happening if the government had been responsive to the concerns of its citizens all along, had been somewhat more ethical in their behavior, and had taken the issue of cleaning up their Washington messes more seriously. But at this stage, it almost seems like much of the country has adopted a siege mentality when dealing with the numerous intrusions offered up by dozens of federal agencies. Even the states are becoming hopelessly corrupted, because for decades they have helped themselves to the federal government's taxpayer-financed largess, conversely losing control over everything from local school districts to the management of their own highways and waterways. Washington's answer to this has been to enact even more restrictive legislation, grant these intrusive agencies even more power then deny their own involvement, shift blame and point fingers at everyone and everything except the Bogey Man. President Clinton is too busy finding 'right wing extremists' under every rock, and the Republicans are too busy pushing agendas nobody understands. But virtually no lawmaker has gotten serious about de clawing these federal agencies. In fact, in 1996, many of the most intrusive of them received more money in their budgets. The nation feels like it is at the precipice of disaster. Once the mood of rebellion sparks, it doesn't take a lot of fuel to ignite a firestorm. The government's stock reply is that 'people just don't care'. I don't believe that; from where I sit, it looks as though our lawmakers are the ones who are the most apathetic. *** (c) 1997 USA Features Media Co. All rights reserved. USA Journal Online. http://www.usajournal.com "Read the news and listen to the radio--right from our site!" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: L&J: Roby: Full Disclosure (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1997 07:58:11 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com I'll start by directing your attention to the following: FROM: Roby: My Full Confession 2/3 (10/16/97) ======================================== IMPORTANT NOTE: Part of my Proof of this lies in the details about weapons and tactics in use reported to me from the police. I have agreed not to disclose these details to the public. As I am writing this, I have been told that "My Word is My word"; even if given to the police, And I should not violate my trust. Only full compliance of my request for full disclosure to the public will keep me from breaking my promise. WEAPONS AND TACTICS were just some of the details. ========================================= I am now breaking this promise for three reasons: 1. The Illinois State Police have not provided full disclosure, i.e. allowed independent verification of their claims. (They had over 72 hours) 2. A message from a person I love and respect very much: >Son, I am getting tired of you milking the cow and then dumping the bucket >over. What the hell happened in that meeting that you are not disclosing. Why >keep your word with the devil? lt is not fair for you not to let your friends >know the real truth. spit it out now.! Mom > 3. The most important motivator for this post, from a person many would soon forget: >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:58:44 -0400 >To: "J.J. Johnson" >From: Mark Pitcavage >Subject: Re: piml] My Full Confession Part 3/3 > > >Having read your three-part "confession," I have to wonder who has a more >distorted view of reality--Shirley Allen or you. > The Illinois State Police can thank this so-called "watchdog" (above) for causing me to break my word... WEAPONS Those approching the inner perimeter (for whatever reason) can expect to be met by a host of MSG's and MP'5 submachine guns, supplemented by an unknown number of two-man sniper teams. Also in use on the scene: Parabolic mirrors, listening devices attached to the homes, cameras and suspected inferred equippment as well as other unspecified items on loan from the Illinois National Guard. To NOTE: Those who may wish to go swimming along the Sangamon River (which runs north of the Allen home) will run into fishermen in boats. They're not fishermen. They explained that their air survaillence has been suspended because of Shirley's fears. I have no reason to believe that. (All this for a 51-year old woman with a shotgun, and no warrant. Who's crazy?) TACTICS There are several reasons (as I was told) that the police will not restore Shirley Allen's utilities. I believe the most important is that she may have a radio inside. They are very concerned with NOT allowing Shirley Allen to know she has support on the outside. (How loud can you yell?) Another reason is this is how they plan to apprehend Mrs. Allen. The Police have laid a trap for Mrs. Allen by making sure that she has the ablity to restore her own utilities (notably electrical). When she is forced to come out and try, they will grab her. To this point, Shirley has proven herself wiser the the police. They also believe she has a kerosene heater in her home to keep her warm. They said they could tell by the frost building up on the windows inside. (Does she have any windows left?) >From the way they described the scene, they've probably got men hiding in Shirley's Garage. That's a educated guess. Not confirmed. They also said they placed food and water on her front porch, also in an attempt to draw her out. They have done everything they can to make life around Shirley Allen's neighborhood seem normal, including neighbors doing their normal activities. Shirley is reported to be up to three meals a day (Kinda makes you wonder why the police are still there.) The police said that other means of communication has been delivered to Shirley Allen's home, but she refuses to use this medium. A frequency counter and scanner (up to about 900 Mhz) would be helpful for vistors to Shirley Allen's home. IMPORTANT: They also stated that if they notice signs of hypothermia in the Allen home, they *will* go in. Therefore, if you're waiting for a signal, don't watch the clock... ...watch your thermometer. PLEASE TAKE NOTE: These are statements from the police. They could be lying. For the media who receive this post, please question them on these issues in thier next press conference. *** OTHER ITEMS LEARNED WHILE IN SPRINGFIELD The operation is being coordinated from a multi-story headquarters located at 500 N. 6th St. in Springfield. On-site command and control center is a armor plated mobile van. But I guess most people already knew that. The police are preparing for defensive operations between the two perimeters (inner and outer). They are focused more on a threat from the outside than from Shirley Allen herself. They also suspect that local residents are making plans for counter-operations, therefore they were probably told not to trust local residents. Finally, and most important: When I was staying in my motel (6), I thought that I had a larger than normal presence of State Police in the area watching my every move. I must admit the standard dress of cammo pants, black T-shirts, combat boots, crew cuts, and .45 cal. sidearms can be a bit itimidating during off hours. I learned I was mistaken about the amount of survaillence. I have no idea where you would put a large number of state police (from all over the state working in 6 hour shifts) but I can tell you one thing... ...They love Big Macs. And for you bartenders, waiters and waitresses: Make sure those boys tip you well. They are on hazardous duty pay, ya know. They can afford it. For those ladies who are being offered more than just tips, make sure you have those boys back to where they belong before shift change....with their wallets. Happy Trails... J.J. (so much for the olive brach) Johnson P.S. Knowing full well that this post will get in the hands of law-enforcement, please make a note in my file that J.J. Johnson cannot be trusted by law-enforcement. After all, I don't trust them, either. Have a nice day :) J.J. Johnson 500 N. Rainbow Blvd. Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 citizen@mindspring.com 888.779.3347 Shirley Allen Defense Fund c/o First Turst & Savings Bank P.O. Box 350 Taylorville, Illinois 62568 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Paper Terrorism Disables Government? (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1997 08:33:53 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:58:49 -0700 Resent-From: consensus-l@eskimo.com Conservative Consensus(tm) ************************************************************************ Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions ************************************************************************ http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html Serving the 'Net 4 Years Essay * V3X35 * 20/Oct/97 * ISSN 1074-245X Editor's note: This is not an isolated case! In this account, the police are actually being given authority over the courts by the legislature! Paper Terrorism Has Effectively Disabled Government by Dean Isaacson This was declared by Representative Karen Schmidt in a letter to all Washington State Representatives and Senators. The letter was written on State Patrol letterhead and dated September 17th. While she was composing this letter, the "effectively disabled" State Legislature was conducting a special session and passing the warrants check bill. Now that the State Patrol has been successful in codifying the warrant search matter, they might not be busy enough with their own affairs. In the letter, she offers the services of the State Patrol's Organized Crime Unit for all those lawmakers who feel themselves to be victimized by oppressive citizens. In other words, our final victimhood group is the people who write our laws and distribute our taxes; and the first agency to get an increase in their fiscal budget will be the overworked State Patrol. With her letter, she enclosed a memo that her aide explained to me was written by the crime unit. These items, which are direct quotes, are among the matters classified to be paper terrorism: bogus liens, frivolous lawsuits, common law courts that issue homemade subpoenas, challenging judges in an effort to disqualify them on a current case, distributing the extremist Citizens Handbook, using the Internet to promote extremist ideas, filing bogus claims in small claims court, and requesting information from courts, government agencies, etc. According to the memo, if you file a bogus or frivolous lawsuit, the State Patrol may intervene. How can they suggest that the Executive Branch has any authority to interfere with due process within the Judicial Branch? Court rules and RCWs both contain penalties for frivolous suits. Now that the State Patrol has tasted new-found powers, will they be deluded in the belief that they will have authority over those who are under the jurisdiction of the courts? Will the State Patrol eliminate the right of a litigant to move their case out of the court of an antagonistic judge? Will they eliminate free speech? and jury nullification? Will they eliminate the Freedom Of Information Act? The memo explains the "Tell-tale signs of Patriot extremists can often be found in their conversation or written documents. Common indicators are biblical passages, [and] referring to the state as a 'republic'..." This just shows how out of touch these people are with the citizens and the foundational principles of our nation. The description in the memo of the Patriot movement and other "extremists" is interesting because it really appears to be describing the majority of our elected officials. "Members of these groups bond to one another and lose contact with other people who hold different opinions. This isolation works to reinforce their views, which in turn gives them new purpose." The memo claims that "These anti-government extremists and supporters are convinced citizens are being systematically oppressed by an illegal, totalitarian government". Too bad, the only solution Karen Schmidt and the State Patrol can come up with is to prove they are right. Friends, this issue of total civil government control of our lives via identity cards, spot checks and crack downs on free-speech and due process is not going to mitigate any time soon. This legislative session Karen Schmidt (both Schmidts, for that matter) will continue to push to expand their ability to know everything about you and control every aspect of your life. In a day that we already have crowded prisons, some lawmakers seem bent on making criminals out of ordinary citizens. Then again, this gives them the excuse to release more felons into society. As we cry out for justice and law and order, they grab more authority to write laws that take away our freedoms and give the civil authorities control over every aspect of our lives. They will stand before God for the lives and families they have torn apart. This next session, we need to make our voices heard and to convince our local representatives, especially the GOP, that we value LIMITED government and want to have the authority to live our own lives under God. Next election, we need to take out-of-touch representatives, like Karen Schmidt, out-of-office. Copyright 1997 by the Heritage Caucus. Used with permission. POB 707, Monroe WA 98272, email cominus@premier1.net. _________________________________________________________________ COPYRIGHT 1997 by Conservative Consensus, unless otherwise noted. Please redistribute widely with headers and trailers intact. For an understanding of how propaganda is being used to manage the news and suppress dissent, visit our Website and check out information on The McMillan Letter. Go ahead --- satisfy your curiosity! To find out what the complete monthly issue of Conservative Consensus looks like, click here, or visit our Website at the address below. Join this list! Email SUBSCRIBE to consensus-L-request@eskimo.com or visit our WEBSITE at http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html for details. *********************************************************************** Conservative Consensus & The McMillan Letter Bridge Over Troubled Waters TV Show, Seattle 6:30pm Fri. Ch.29 Email: ccnrs@eskimo.com * Infoline: (206)230-5227 * Fax: (206)783-3243 ************************************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Bernard Rapoport-Teamsters-Webster Hubbell-Waco-Vince Foster-Hillary Clinton-Whitewater-Lippo group (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1997 13:22:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: tmulkern@mail.ameritel.net (Trent C Mulkern) > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 04:31:50 -0400 > Subject: Clinton Friend Is Questioned In Federal Teamsters Probe-Wall ST.Journal > > Clinton Friend Is Questioned > In Federal Teamsters Probe > > By GLENN R. SIMPSON > Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL > > WASHINGTON -- Federal prosecutors and Senate > investigators have questioned a Texas businessman > close to President Clinton about his knowledge of > possibly improper financial dealings between the > Teamsters union and the Democratic Party. > > Bernard Rapoport, owner of a Waco insurance company ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > that sells policies to members of the Teamsters and other > > unions, told investigators that he learned from a > Teamsters official and a Democratic senator of possibly > improper plans to help fund Teamster President Ron > Carey's re-election campaign last year. But he said he > advised against the plans and didn't help Mr. Carey's > campaign. Mr. Rapoport, a major contributor to the > Democratic Party, was questioned Monday by Senate > investigators and spoke with prosecutors in Manhattan > several weeks ago about fund raising for Mr. Carey. > > Federal prosecutors are investigating an alleged > agreement between Democratic Party officials and > fund-raisers for Mr. Carey to swap campaign > contributions. The brief involvement of Mr. Rapoport in > the talks between the Teamsters and the Democrats > sheds more light on the once-obscure dealings between > the two groups, although they apparently never resulted > in any actual transactions. > > Last month, three Carey associates pleaded guilty in > federal court in Manhattan to fraud charges involving the > > Teamsters election, including charges that the attempted > donation swap was part of a criminal conspiracy to > defraud the Teamsters. Prosecutors continue to question > a number of Democratic Party operatives. > > In a recent interview, Mr. Rapoport acknowledged > meeting with prosecutors but wouldn't give details. > "Neither this company nor myself ever take sides in a > labor election," he said Monday, "because our business > is primarily with unions and our unalterable rule is we > never take sides in their internal affairs." Several > lawyers and government investigators described Mr. > Rapoport's involvement in the matter. > > Under the alleged swap agreement, Democratic officials > were to persuade some of their large contributors to help > > Mr. Carey in exchange for Teamsters political-action > committee contributions to the Democrats; prosecutors > are exploring whether Mr. Rapoport may have been one > such person. The Teamsters official who allegedly > discussed the contribution swap with Mr. Rapoport, say > lawyers and others involved in the matter, was William > Hamilton, who ran the Teamsters PAC until he came > under investigation by prosecutors last summer. Mr. > Hamilton, whom prosecutors have depicted in court > documents as a central figure in the contribution-swap > scheme, and Mr. Rapoport are longtime associates > through their involvement in Texas Democratic politics. > Mr. Hamilton's lawyer, Bob Gage, declined to comment. > > Investigators are looking into whether a Sept. 30, 1996, > fund-raiser for Mr. Carey, attended by an aide to Mr. > Rapoport, is linked to the swap discussions. Jules > Pagano, a Washington representative of Mr. Rapoport's > American Income Life Insurance Co., is listed along > with Mr. Hamilton on an invitation for the $100-a-ticket > Washington event. > > Mr. Rapoport said he wasn't involved in the fund-raiser, > adding, "If Mr. Pagano went, he went as an individual > and certainly not as a representative of our company." > Mr. Pagano Monday said that he agreed to be a host of > the fund-raiser at the request of a former labor leader's > > widow and that he wasn't asked to do so by Mr. > Rapoport. Mr. Pagano said he didn't contribute to Mr. > Carey after he learned that under federal labor law he > was ineligible to help Mr. Carey because he is an > employer. > > The Democratic senator with whom Mr. Rapoport > allegedly discussed the swap proposal was Bob Kerrey > of Nebraska, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial > Campaign Committee. As reported, the Senate > Democrats' fund-raising group also discussed the > contribution-swap plan with party officials. A > spokesman for Mr. Kerrey said the senator remembers > hearing about the proposal and wouldn't be surprised if > he had mentioned it to Mr. Rapoport, whom he regards > as an adviser. But the spokesman said Mr. Kerrey never > took the proposal seriously, and Mr. Rapoport said Mr. > Kerrey wasn't interested in pursuing the contribution > swap. > > Meanwhile, Mr. Carey Monday again denied > involvement in the alleged fund-raising improprieties. In > > a speech at the National Press Club, he said it was a > "few individuals" in his campaign who devised and > carried out the schemes. > > In another disclosure about the Teamsters probe, the > Associated Press reported that an $85,000 mailing by > the National Council of Senior Citizens last year, paid > for by the Teamsters, benefited Mark Warner, a > Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. > Prosecutors have alleged that this was the first step in an > improper transfer of funds from Mr. Warner's campaign > to Mr. Carey's effort through a direct-mail firm. The > seniors group denied any wrongdoing, and a lawyer for > Mr. Warner's campaign said she was unaware of any > impropriety. > > --Glenn Burkins contributed to this article. > DATATIMES NO: AAS692635 AUTHOR: Julia Malone TITLE: President cites Rapoport as friend in explaining stays at White House DATE: 19970308 SOURCE: Austin American-Statesman; A11, (Copyright 1997) ABSTRACT: WASHINGTON - In defending his controversial practice of inviting campaign contributors for White House overnights, President Clinton on Friday cites the case of Bernard Rapport of Waco, a longtime backer who bunked in the Lincoln bedroom. "Well, he was my friend 25 years ago," the president said of news reports that focused on the 79-year old Waco insurance company founder and former chairman of the University of Texas Board of Regents. AUTHOR: Ross MacKenzie TITLE: BETWEEN THE GRAND INQUISITOR & THE CHURCH LADY, ASSESSING THE CLINTONS DATE: 19970622 SOURCE: Richmond Times-Dispatch; F-7, City, (Copyright 1997) ABSTRACT: Stream of consciousness on the Clintons -- what they do, what they say (and what others say about them), and the company they keep . . . . Now, in the scandal du jour, the illegal foreign campaign contributions (Question: If these people have nothing to hide, why are so many of them refusing to testify -- and why are so many hiding out, out of the country?). John Huang, Melinda Yee, Mochtar and James Riady; Yogesh Gandhi and Teruyoshi Hogen Fukunaga; Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie and Suma Ching Hai; Russ Barakat and Chong Lo (alias Esther Chu); Rashid Chaudary and Izzat Majeed; Wang Jun and Johnny Chung; Roger Tamraz, Pauline Kanchanalak, Jorge Cabrera, Ted Sioeng, Maria Hsia; Hsing Lun (and the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California); John K.H. Lee and Young-chull Chung; Donald Fowler; Nora and Gene Lum; Zhang Baifa and Chen Xitong; "Michelle Lima" and "Hong Jen Chiao"; Mark Middleton; Bernard Rapoport and Truman Arnold; Valerie Lau. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AUTHOR: Julia Malone TITLE: Texan patriarch bails out Hubbell // Waco Democrat questioned about his $18,000 aid payment DATE: 19970307 SOURCE: Austin American-Statesman; A1, (Copyright 1997) ABSTRACT: WASHINGTON -- For decades, when Texas Democrats needed help, they turned to Bernard Rapoport, the Waco insurance executive whose deep liberal convictions match his deep pockets. So when Webster Hubbell, a close friend of President Clinton, resigned as associate attorney general in April 1994 and prepared to plead guilty to fraud charges, Rapoport was among those who came to his rescue. CREDIT: Associated Press DATE: 19970412 SOURCE: Chicago Sun-Times; 12, LATE SPORTS FINAL, (Copyright 1997) DESCRIPTORS: LEGAL; whitewater; investigations; donations ABSTRACT: Webster Hubbell may have received up to $500,000 in salary from various people after leaving the Justice Department in 1994. Among the highlights: Democratic donors who each paid him $18,000: John Moores, San Diego Padres owner and builder of a computer software empire; Bernard Rapoport, Texas insurance ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ magnate; Truman Arnold, Texas petroleum marketer; C.W. Conn, Texas appliance chain owner; Wayne Reaud, Texas attorney. Indonesian Lippo interested reportedly paid up to $240,000. Former Chief of Staff Mack McLarty and current Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles made phone calls seeking work on Hubbell's behalf. AUTHOR: Russell Gold Express-News Staff Writer TITLE: UT chiefs' link to Bullock money revealed - 7 campus presidents driven to private fund-raiser during final stretch of re-election drive DATE: 19970310 SOURCE: San Antonio Express-News; 1A, Alamo, (Copyright 1997) ABSTRACT: Seven presidents of University of Texas System campuses were driven in a van to a fund-raiser for Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock at the home of then Board of Regents Chairman Bernard Rapoport. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Many of the presidents - including UTSA President Samuel Kirkpatrick - gave checks to Bullock, whose 1994 re-election campaign was then in its final stretch. TITLE: Payments to ex-Clinton aide being examined DATE: 19970306 SOURCE: Austin American-Statesman; A12, (Copyright 1997) ABSTRACT: WASHINGTON -- In the months after Webster Hubbell was forced to resign to face a criminal investigation in 1994, the former associate attorney general received more than $400,000 from about a dozen enterprises, according to associates of Hubbell and to government records. Among his employers were Bernard Rapoport of Waco and Truman Arnold of Texarkana, both of whom are big contributors to the Democratic Party. Like the Texans, many of those who paid Hubbell, a former law partner of Hillary Rodham Clinton and one of the Clintons' closest friends, were regulars at the White House fund-raising coffees or overnight guests in the Lincoln Bedroom. AUTHOR: Richard Sisk; New York Daily News TITLE: HUBBELL: RECORDS GIVEN TO FOSTER DATE: 19960208 SOURCE: The News Tribune Tacoma, WA; B6, (Copyright 1996) ABSTRACT: WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's former law partner testified Wednesday that he had kept her long-lost billing records in his basement and then handed them off to Vince Foster. Adding fresh intrigue to the mystery over the records, former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell told the Senate Whitewater Committee he had no idea what happened to them after giving them to Foster in 1993. TITLE: White House aide's car burglarized CREDIT: Associated Press DATE: 19950714 SOURCE: Times Union (Albany, NY); A3, ONE STAR, (Copyright 1995) ABSTRACT: WASHINGTON The car of an aide to President Clinton's chief counsel was burglarized this week and several "sensitive documents" were stolen, White House officials said late Thursday. A local television station, WTTG, a Fox affiliate, reported that the documents included ones pertaining to the investigation of the 1993 death of White House deputy counsel Vince Foster and the 1994 federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jim bohan Subject: Another on Ambrose Date: 21 Oct 1997 23:21:08 -0600 bject: DRUDGE REPORT FINAL 10/21/97 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:00:46 -0500 (CDT) From: DRUDGE REPORT To: drudge@drudgereport.com XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT FINAL XXXXX TUES OCT 21 1997 20:08 PDT XXXXX AMBROSE'S AMERICA New Book Warns of Moral Mush I haven't been able to put down REGNERY's new one, THE SECRET LIFE OF BILL CLINTON by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. At 460 pages, with more than 50 pages of docs and FBI statements -- some stamped "very confidential" -- it reads better than any fiction available down at the local Crown. Evans-Pritchard goes all the way this time with his "here's what I saw when I was in your country" page-turner. "As I write this I am already sitting 3,000 miles away [from the United States]... I can tell it as I saw it, the whole unvarnished truth," the new age Alexis de Tocqueville begins. [Bet the C-SPAN cameras won't trace these steps.] The former Washington Bureau Chief for the London SUNDAY TELEGRAPH spent his four years in the states not just rehashing the front pages of the WASHINGTON POST and the NEW YORK TIMES for readers back home. He did his own investigating, sniffing around the back halls of power, following the trail to the backwoods, where he says they leave their messes. WacoOKCFosterJonesTysonMena. WacoOKCFosterJonesTysonMena. Those Evans-Pritchard stories from the underground that still light talk radio lines and fill Internet newsgroups are brought to life in this assiduously documented expose, now set for release in early November. "The American elite is almost beyond redemption," he observes. "Moral relativism has set in so deeply that the gilded classes have become incapable of discerning right from wrong. Everything can be explained away, especially by journalists. Life is one great moral mush -- sophistry washed down with Chardonnay. The ordinary citizens, thank goodness, still adhere to absolutes... It is they who have saved the republic from creeping degradation while their 'betters' were derelict." X X X X ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: MONEY Daily: Treasury accepts congressionally-driven IRS reform (fwd) Date: 22 Oct 1997 09:07:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: dailymail@listserv.pathfinder.com For an enhanced HTML version of the Money Daily, visit http://moneydaily.com. Tuesday, October 21, 1997 Treasury accepts congressionally-driven IRS reform by Ryan J. Donmoyer WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration grudgingly accepted legislation to reform the IRS that would, among other things, shift the burden of proof in tax court cases from the taxpayer to the IRS. In a stunning reversal to a hard-line stance staked out over the last couple of months, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin said enough changes in the legislation had been made to protect Treasury's authority over the agency that the administration would now go along with the bill. "We believe we now have a workable plan" to restructure the IRS, Rubin said at a Capitol Hill news conference. House IRS reformers from both political parties declared victory. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas, introduced a bill containing more than 25 new taxpayer protections that is expected to be approved Wednesday by his committee. The marquee proposal -- and most controversial -- is one to shift the burden of proof from taxpayers to the IRS when a disputed case ends up in court. The provision is limited to taxpayers with incomes under $2 million and corporations with incomes under $7 million. In order to qualify for the burden of proof shift, taxpayers still must comply with IRS demands to see records during the audit process. Under the new rules, the IRS would have to prove in court that the any liability it assesses is accurate based on the records provided by taxpayers. Critics, including Rubin, say this shift would overload the courts and encourage tax cheats to not maintain records. But Archer said the provision was "the right thing to do." "In America," he said, "a citizen is presumed innocent until proven liable. In the IRS, it's the other way around -- the taxpayer bears the burden of proving himself or herself innocent. My proposal will shift the burden of proof in court proceedings from the taxpayer to the IRS. This is a common sense change that should have been done a long time ago." Other taxpayer rights provisions in the bill include a law change to make it easier for innocent spouses to get relief if their partners violate the tax law. Taxpayers could sue the IRS for civil damages in negligent collection actions, and confidentiality privileges usually afforded to attorneys and their clients would be extended to qualified tax advisers. The Treasury Department's about-face on opposing IRS reform came about an hour after the leading Democrat in the House -- Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, announced his support for Archer's bill, which was based heavily on recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. Gephardt predicted strong bipartisan support in the House for the bill. Rubin had adamantly opposed congressionally driven efforts to overhaul the tax agency primarily because of a plan to put IRS operations under the supervision of a board of directors made up of mostly private sector officials. He said Tuesday that changes in the bill, such as leaving ultimate authority for hiring and firing the IRS commissioner with the president, was the key to his decision to come around and declare the legislation "workable." Rubin said, however, that the administration still had concerns with the burden of proof provision and other board authorities, and hinted that Democrats might try to get these provisions modified when the Ways and Means Committee considers Archer's legislation on Wednesday. "The bottom line is that they saw the light of the Kerrey- Portman bill," said Doug Shulman, chief of staff of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) and Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) co-chaired the restructuring commission and co-sponsored the resulting legislation in their respective chambers. House Republican leaders say the bill will pass their chamber overwhelmingly before the end of the session in November. The Senate is moving more slowly. The Senate Finance Committee is slated to hold hearings on IRS reform later this month. A committee spokeswoman said IRS reform legislation there would have to address complaints of IRS abuse of taxpayers that arose during the committee's September hearings on agency operations. "The Senate is moving on this," the committee spokeswoman said. "But we're not going to just drop something together quickly just because people want to do this quickly. Any kind of bill [on IRS reform] is going to have to address the abuses that came out." In other news ... by Michael Brush The markets Solid earnings from technology companies, banks and drug makers propelled markets higher Tuesday. The rally was ignited by IBM (NYSE: IBM) and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), which reported better-than-expected earnings after the market's close on Monday. The technology sector had been down after Intel (NASDAQ: INTC), Sun Microsystems (NASDAQ: SUNW) and Seagate Technology (NYSE: SEG) posted disappointing results last week. Salomon has strong quarter Salomon Inc. (NYSE: SB) said Tuesday its profits jumped by almost 85% in the third quarter. The company posted earnings of $206 million, or $1.77 a share. It said results were strong in investment banking and fixed income sales, and that equity trading returned to profitability. Salomon's commodities trading division, Phibro Inc., however, reported sharply lower profits. Phibro's trading is heavily skewed toward crude oil, where volatility was down sharply during the third quarter. Bank profits beat expectations Many of the nation's bigger banks reported better-than- expected third quarter earnings Tuesday. Chase Manhattan, (NYSE: CMB) the nation's largest bank, said earnings rose 14% to $1.03 billion, or $2.26 a share, excluding restructuring charges. Chase cited strength in its consumer credit and asset management businesses, as well as investment banking and trading for its own account. Citicorp (NYSE: CCI), the second largest bank, said profits rose by 14%. After a $889 million restructuring charge, however, net profits were down 45%. Citicorp said it would cut 9,000 jobs over the next 18 months but that 1,500 positions would be added, for a net reduction of 7,500 jobs. Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) said profits fell 10% to $290 million. But earnings per share rose to $3.26, as the number of shares outstanding fell 7%. The results beat forecasts. Bank of New York Co. (NYSE: BK) said earnings rose 10% to $273 million, or 69 cents a share. That was about in line with forecasts on Wall Street. Oil profits strong The nation's top oil companies -- Exxon Corp. (NYSE: XON), Texaco Inc. (NYSE: TX) and Amoco Corp. (NYSE: AN) -- Tuesday reported stronger profits for the third quarter. The good results were due largely to big gains in refinery and marketing profits. Exxon said its earnings rose 17% to $1.82 billion, or 74 cents a share. Revenues, however, were lower at $32.74 billion, against $33.32 billion. Texaco was helped by improvement in overseas refining and marketing as the British retail market recovered. It said earnings rose 13% to $490 million, or 91 cents a share. Revenues were flat at $11.09 billion. Texaco said its refining business was hurt by the Asian currency turmoil. Amoco said third quarter earnings rose 18%, despite a drop in revenues. The company said it earned $635 million. Revenues fell to $8.93 billion from $9.02 billion. ITT bidding ends The contest to purchase the ITT Corp. (NYSE: ITT) hotel company may be over. Hilton Hotels Corp. (NYSE: HLT) said Tuesday it will not make a counter-offer for ITT Corp., despite a higher bid on the table from Starwood Lodging (NYSE: HOT). "We do have a price discipline, and the reality is the market loves the deal that's been presented by Starwood Lodging," said Hilton Chief Executive Officer Stephen Bollenbach said in a teleconference. ITT Corp. this week reached an agreement to be acquired by Starwood, a real estate investment trust based in Phoenix, for $9.8 billion. Hilton had offered $70 a share for ITT in cash and stock, while Starwood's deal was valued at $82 a share in cash and stock. Bollenbach said Starwood was able to outbid Hilton because Starwood is a tax-free real estate investment trust (REIT), as opposed to a corporation. Hilton began its hostile takeover back in January with a $55 per share offer. ITT responded with a series of plans to sell assets and to split the company up. Buffett buys Dairy Queen The famed investor Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has developed a taste for ice cream as well as Cherry Coke. Berkshire said Tuesday it is buying International Dairy Queen, Inc. for $585 million. The company will become a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, if Dairy Queen shareholders approve. "Dairy Queen is a business that I like, run by an outstanding management team," Berkshire Chairman Warren Buffett said in a statement. Omaha-based Berkshire has major holdings in the Coca-Cola, Gillette, Salomon Bros., Geico Corp. and the Washington Post, as well as World Book encyclopedias. Buffett once quipped that he invested in Coca-Cola because he likes Cherry Coke. Lawsuits hurt tobacco earnings Philip Morris (NYSE: MO) and RJR Nabisco Holdings (NYSE: RN) Tuesday reported lower earnings for the third quarter because charges for settling tobacco lawsuits hurt results. If not for the costs of settling cases filed by Florida and Mississippi and a class-action brought by flight attendants, earnings at the two companies would have risen and been in line with expectations on Wall Street. Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, Miller beer, Kraft cheese and other products, said net earnings fell 15% to $1.41 billion, or 58 cents a share. Excluding after-tax charges of $496 million related to settling the lawsuits, net earnings would have been $1.9 billion or 78 cents a share, matching analysts' average forecasts. Sales rose 4% to $18.1 billion from $17.4 billion. RJR Nabsico, which makes Winston and Camel cigarettes, Nabisco crackers and other products, said net income fell 46% to $122 million, or 34 cents a share. Excluding settlement costs of $133 million, earnings would have been $255 million, or 75 cents a share, about in line with analysts' forecasts. Sales rose 2% to $4.4 billion from $4.3 billion. Cigarette makers agreed on July 3 to pay $3.4 billion to settle Mississippi's lawsuit seeking to recover public funds spent treating sick smokers. The industry announced on Aug. 25 that it settled Florida's suit, agreeing to pay $11.3 billion over 25 years. On Oct. 10 it agreed to pay $350 million to settle a class-action suit by flight attendants over secondhand smoke. Those agreements are separate from a $368.5 billion national settlement reached in June that needs approval in Congress. ---------------------- MONEY DAILY DISCUSSION ---------------------- Check out discussions of topics in the Daily on MONEY Online's bulletin board: http://pathfinder.com/cgi-bin/boards/nph-read/3 In addition, comments may be sent to Doug Dundas or to Kevin McKean . ------------------------ SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ------------------------ TO SIGN UP FOR MONEY DAILY, point your browser to http://pathfinder.com/money/moneydaily/latest/subscribe.html, or send an e-mail to subscribe@moneydaily.com TO SIGN OFF FROM THE MAILING LIST, point your browser to http://pathfinder.com/money/moneydaily/latest/unsubscribe.html or send an e-mail to unsubscribe@moneydaily.com For detailed sign-up and sign-off information, send an e-mail to dailymail@pathfinder.com. TO SUBSCRIBE TO MONEY MAGAZINE, just call our toll-free number, 800-633-9970. Thank you for signing up for the Money Daily! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Once a Whore, Always a Whore (fwd) Date: 22 Oct 1997 09:46:43 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From the London Telegraph Monday June 10 1996 Student Bill Clinton 'spied' on Americans abroad for CIA A new book alleges that Bill Clinton spent his Oxford days monitoring anti-Vietnam war activists for the CIA, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports from Washington WHEN Bill Clinton ran for the US presidency four years ago, Republicans tried to prove that, as a student, he burnt the Stars and Stripes in protest at the Vietnam War. Now Dr Roger Morris, author of an astonishing new book called Partners in Power, claims that, in the late 1960s, Mr Clinton worked as a source for the Central Intelligence Agency. So, was the young Clinton a patriot or just an opportunist? He was certainly no dangerous radical. "No attack by his reactionary opponents would be more undeserved than the charge that young Bill Clinton was 'radical'," concludes Morris. According to the book, the bearded, dishevelled Rhodes scholar was recruited by the CIA while at Oxford - along with several other young Americans with political aspirations - to keep tabs on fellow students involved in protest activities against the Vietnam War. Morris says that the young Clinton indulged in some low-level spying in Norway in 1969, visiting the Oslo Peace Institute and submitting a CIA informant's report on American peace activists who had taken refuge in Scandinavia to avoid the draft. "An officer in the CIA station in Stockholm confirmed that," said Morris. The Washington Establishment would like to dismiss this troubling book as the work of a fevered conspiracy theorist. But Morris is no lightweight. He worked at the White House in both the Johnson and Nixon administrations, resigning from the National Security Council in 1970 in protest over the US invasion of Cambodia. He went on to become an acclaimed biographer of Richard Nixon. Rhodes scholars such as Mr Clinton were favourite targets for recruitment As a member of America's tight-knit association of retired intelligence officers, he has access to highly privileged information. "It's an incredible network," he explained. "They pass you along from source to source." The CIA started recruiting campus informants under President Lyndon Johnson when he demanded hard proof that there were, in his words, "commie money and organisers behind this student s***". The programme, known as Operation Chaos, would offer informants a wide range of inducements: a little cash on the side; taking care of their draft problems; and promises of future help. "You know, if the agency's in a position to help at some point in their careers, there'd be an institutional memory," explained one CIA officer. "They knew the advantages of helping out." Rhodes scholars such as Mr Clinton were favourite targets for recruitment. This caused serious friction with Britain's MI5 because it violated a US-UK agreement that neither country would conduct covert operations or recruit on each other's home territory. "Because of the sensitivity of the UK, these kids were treated in some ways like high-level agents," recalled one officer. In the mid-1970s the CIA shredded its archives on Operation Chaos. One of those involved in the purge of the records told Morris that he had seen Bill Clinton listed as a former informant who went on to run for political office. "He was there in the records, with a special designation," the official is quoted as saying in the book. Mr Clinton's alleged ties to the CIA would explain some later episodes during his tenure as Governor of Arkansas, when his state became a staging-point for President Ronald Reagan's secret effort to supply the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. An Arkansas State Trooper, L. D. Brown, has testified in a deposition that he was inducted into the CIA on Mr Clinton's suggestion, and then went on two clandestine flights to deliver weapons to Central America. Mr Clinton was even commended for his "patriotic" work by the Reagan White House after he had sent the Arkansas National Guard to Honduras for manoeuvres. The deployment was a ruse by the Pentagon, according to Morris. The Arkansas Guard left its "excess" inventory behind, providing a cache of weapons that were slipped to the Contras. The point is not that Bill and Hillary Clinton are Right-wingers in disguise. It is that they have no conviction, no ideology, no guiding purpose. Even Hillary Clinton was a Cold Warrior of sorts. Described in Morris's book as "a closet Contra supporter", she quietly aided Contra fund-raising in Little Rock. She also used her influence in US liberal circles to undercut the legitimacy of peace activists and pro-Sandinista church groups opposed to President Reagan's policies in Central America. The point is not that Bill and Hillary Clinton are Right-wingers in disguise -although Morris demolishes the pretence that they were progressive reformers in Arkansas. It is that they have no conviction, no ideology, no guiding purpose. Driven by raw ambition, they will make any compromise necessary to advance their interests. Partners in Power is the first of what will be a succession of books about the Clintons whose authors are not fooled by the shadow-boxing that often passes for substantive debate in American politics. (A second book, by the editor of the American Spectator, will be coming out later this month with another set of revelations.) Morris violates all the taboos. Impatient with the manicured myth that Bill Clinton was the apple-pie boy from Hope, Arkansas, he reveals the little-known fact that the President spent much of his childhood in Hot Springs, the capital of gambling, drug-smuggling and organised crime in the central United States, where his powerful uncle and mentor, Raymond Clinton, was a member of the Dixie mafia. It was not Mr Clinton's fault, of course, that he grew up in the culture of "the Mob". But it is central to understanding who Bill Clinton really is. It helps explain why his brother, Roger, ended up as a convicted drug dealer, and why Bill himself allegedly became a regular user of cocaine. (On a police surveillance videotape quoted from in the book, Roger can be heard saying to a supplier of cocaine: "Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner.") For Morris, ensconced in his New Mexico mountain retreat, the American political system is now fatally corrupted. Democrats and Republicans noisily dispute how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But both are indentured servants of the permanent government - "a bureaucracy so self-corrupted it is unfit for democracy" - and the interlocking interests of the lobby machine to be found on Washington's K Street. It already looks as if the US media will try to ignore Partners in Power, which is to be published next week. "Their reaction is entirely predictable," said Morris. "If they were to behave any other way, my book would not be true." This report appeared in the last edition of The Sunday Telegraph (JUNE 10, 1996) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Maintenance man shows ATF did not fall in OK City elevators Date: 22 Oct 1997 15:20:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Elevator Maintenance Man Shows Murrah Photos to Panel http://www.oklahoman.com/bombing/bnew/ Oklahoman Online 10/21/1997 By Diana Baldwin and Judy Kuhlman Staff Writers An elevator maintenance man said he left the Oklahoma County grand jury Monday with a clear conscience because he told the truth about the condition of the Murrah Building's elevators after the April 19, 1995, explosion. ''When I have a problem deciding what to do, I go to the Bible,'' said Oscar Johnson, general manager of Mid-Western Elevator Co. Johnson pulled a slip of paper from his pocket and quoted part of a verse from 2 Corinthians, chapter 4. He explained the verse meant if he told the truth, then the jurors' conscience will guide them to do what is right. ''That is the way I feel about it,'' said Johnson, wearing a bombing memorial pin of a gold ribbon topped with a cross. Johnson testified for the second time before the grand jury investigating a larger conspiracy in the Oklahoma City bombing. He arrived Monday carrying a 20-gallon plastic container of photographs taken at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. He estimated he had between 300 and 400 pictures, including a 30-inch by 40-inch picture of the bomb crater. On July 15, Johnson presented the grand jury with photographs and documents to support his contention that none of the seven Murrah Building elevators fell in the blast. Alex McCauley, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent, and David Schickedanz, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, say they were in an elevator that dropped five floors -- to the third -- when the bomb went off. Some say federal agents were notified in advance about the bombing and were not in the building, fueling allegations that agents were lying about being in the elevators. ATF agents have denied any prior knowledge of the bombing. Schickedanz has also testified before the grand jury. The grand jury convened June 30 after State Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, and the late Glenn Wilburn, who lost two grandsons in the bombing, led the effort to impanel the investigative panel. Key contends the federal government had prior knowledge about the bombing and hid the identity of others involved. Timothy McVeigh, 29, was convicted June 2 of destroying the Murrah Building with a massive truck bomb. The explosions resulted in 168 deaths. McVeigh has been sentenced to die. His Army friend, Terry Nichols, 42, is on trial in Denver. Johnson said he was called back before the six-man, six-woman panel to clarify questions about the elevators and the bomb crater. Johnson said his testimony had not changed since July. He testified Monday for an hour and 45 minutes. Johnson also said it would have been impossible for the agents to free themselves from the elevator because a wall was pushed against the top of it, and the doors would not have opened. He said there were only two elevators where people could have escaped without assistance. On the remaining elevators, either the doors were blocked or the elevators were stopped between floors. Johnson also disbelieves a Federal Emergency Management Agency report about the size of the crater left by the bomb. That report states the blast left a 28-foot diameter crater, but Johnson claims the crater size was only about 16 feet. Two others testified Monday before the grand jury, which is expected to meet through Friday. Brian Marshall, a former employee of Johnny's Tire Co., spent 90 minutes with the grand jury. Marshall worked at the downtown tire company with earlier grand jury witness Michael Moroz. Moroz testified about two men in a Ryder truck who he said asked him for directions to the Murrah Building minutes before the explosion. He identified one of the men he saw as McVeigh. In 1995, Moroz was considered an important witness. He was one of four witnesses asked by FBI agents to try to pick McVeigh out of a lineup, and his account of seeing McVeigh was related by an FBI agent at McVeigh's preliminary hearing April 27. Marshall first told The Oklahoman, ''I didn't see anything.'' But later Marshall said that he wasn't going to say what he saw or what he told the jury. When asked if he also saw two people in a Ryder truck before the bombing, Marshall said, ''Mike is a good guy.'' Terry Webb, a Phillips 66 employee from Bartlesville, also testified before the grand jury Monday, his wife told The Oklahoman. The grand jury is expected to hear from at least six other witnesses this week. The jurors are scheduled to begin work at 9 a.m. today. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas FBI 'KNEW IN ADVANCE' OF OKLAHOMA BOMB By Hugo Gurdon, Electronic Telegraph, October 21, 1997 THE trial of Timothy McVeigh for the 1995 Oklahoma bomb was a government cover-up to shield FBI agents who knew about the plot but failed to stop it, according to a book by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard alleging massive corruption under President Clinton. With McVeigh already sentenced to death for the blast which killed 168 people, and Terry Nichols, an alleged accomplice, standing trial, the book's claim will spar