From: Subject: IT DIDN'T START WITH LORAL (fwd) Date: 01 Jun 1998 07:50:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Apparently-To: wwlist@dolphin.gulf.net IT DIDN'T START WITH LORAL The Clinton National Security Fire Sale By Carl Limbacher OYSTER BAY -- The revelation that the Clinton administration may have traded U.S. national security for campaign cash from China exploded like a Long March rocket just two weeks ago. Johnny Chung's confession to investigators that some of the money he donated to help re-elect Bill Clinton came directly from the People's Liberation Army finally set off mainstream media smoke alarms. On the Sunday chat shows, the topic is picking up steam - and has even managed to supplant Monica-gate as the biggest bulb on the Clinton scandalabra. But the story of Bill Clinton's national security sell out doesn't begin with Jeff Gerth's May 16 New York Times bombshell about Liu Chaoying and her PLA bagman, Mr. Chung. Nor did it start when Gerth began exploring the Loral Corp.'s technology transfers to China on the Times front page six weeks earlier. In fact, the Clinton administration has long demonstrated what could only be described as a pattern and practice of behavior towards China: a series of decisions where the best interests of America have consistently taken a back seat to the designs of Clinton's Chinese patrons. It's not a pretty picture. SUPERCOMPUTERS Last year's revelation that the Clinton administration had looked the other way while supercomputer technology was transferred to potential foes foreshadowed the current controversy. In February 1997, Long Island's Newsday first reported that California's Silicon Graphics was under investigation for selling to Russia a high-powered unit that ended up in the Chelyabinsk-70 nuclear weapons laboratory. Reportedly, SGI delivered the computer without even getting the required license. No wonder. The Silicon-Chelyabinsk supercomputer was twice as powerful as anything that was legal for an American firm to ship overseas. According to the report, the Russians had been very anxious to acquire the high tech equipment. And they made no bones about how they intended to use it. In a Sept. '96 letter to then Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, Russia's Nuclear Energy Minister Viktor Mikhaylov explained that he wanted the high performance computer to "guarantee the reliability of....Russia's nuclear stockpile." Just days after the Newsday story, The Wall Street Journal reported that Silicon Graphics had sold two similar computers to China's Academy of Sciences, which conducts research into nuclear weapons and missiles. SGI claimed that the sale was in full compliance with U.S. export regulations. But the Journal revealed that at least one of the SGI units was transferred to the Chinese without benefit of the required license. Moreover, that unit was capable of six billion theoretical operations per second, making it twice as powerful as the model SGI sold to the Russians. How was SGI allowed to get away with all this during the final years of the first Clinton term? Just lucky, perhaps. Although the fact that SGI's chairman, Edward McCracken, was a big time Democrat donor in '92 and '96 surely didn't hurt. And McCracken didn't waste any time taking advantage of the access his money bought. According to the previously cited Newsday report: It was three weeks after a private luncheon with McCracken at the White House in September, 1993, that Clinton announced sweeping liberalization of computer export standards, allowing computers of up to 194 MTOPS to be sold without a license. Until then only machines with up to 12.5 MTOPS - the power of a 486 chip desktop PC - could be sold without a license. By May of 1997, the full scope of China's American supercomputer bonanza had become public. Under the Clinton "liberalization", The Peoples' Republic of China had acquired no less than 46 of the prized high performance machines. House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde was quoted that same month by the Washington Times observing that the computer technology transfers "may have given the PRC more supercomputer capacity than the entire (U.S.) Department of Defense." COSCO'S BEACHHEAD While he was not too busy helping the Chinese build up their arsenal abroad, Mr. Clinton took time to do what he could for Chinese state business interests at home. The transfer of the Long Beach, California naval station to the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) is by now notorious. But what wasn't widely reported last year was the degree to which the Clinton White House leaned on local Long Beach office holders to pave the way for COSCO's beachhead on American soil. Here's how The New York Times described the intense White House lobbying for that deal: During a tough battle last year ('96) over how a closed Navy base in Long Beach, Calif., would be used, a Clinton administration official made what several people involved describe as highly unusual telephone calls to push for construction there of a container terminal that would be leased to a shipping company owned by the Chinese Government....There was no evidence that there was anything improper about the calls, but several officials who received them said it was highly unusual for the White House to intervene of behalf of one side in a local battle like this one, especially when the intervention benefited the cause of a private company....Several of those officials said the White House pressure had been unprecedented. "We'd never had a phone call like that in this office before," said Lee Keatinge of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. "There's no base re-use fight that's come close to Long Beach" for that kind of high level involvement. Another Long Beach official, Ruthann Lehrer, told the Times: "It was made clear that this container terminal plan was the preference of the White House, not any of the other ideas some people were talking about. This was clearly not something that the White House wanted studied further." Although the Times quoted Long Beach officials who were primarily concerned with the historic preservation of their port, others were more troubled by the tenant. Just months before Bill Clinton enlisted in the battle of Long Beach on the Chinese side, BATF and Customs agents intercepted contraband shipped on a COSCO container ship docked up the coastline in Oakland. The state owned Chinese ship was being used by the state run arms company to smuggle machine guns to American street gangs. Still, priorities are priorities. And the priority here for Bill Clinton may have had something to do with the fact that the ubiquitous and generous Mr. Chung was linked to COSCO through Hongye Zheng, a senior COSCO advisor who accompanied Chung to the White House for a Clinton radio address. "ASSAULT WEAPONS" FOR U.S. But of all the decisions, waivers and export liberalizations executed on behalf of the Chinese by the Clinton White House, none rivals what the administration did for Wang Jun, the princeling chairman of China's state owned arms conglomerate, Poly Technologies. For years, China had been doing a land office business exporting to the U.S. semi-automatic rifles and ammo made by Poly and another arms manufacturer, Norinco. Reportedly, the gun trade was worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the PRC. But suddenly in 1994, there was a problem: the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. Overnight, China's weapons cash cow evaporated. Not to worry. According to a Scripps Howard report by Michael Hedges, which ran on the front page of the March 14, 1997 edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Clinton administration granted Wang Jun's Poly Technologies importation permits to flood America with over 100,000 semi-automatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition -- despite the president's own cherished gun ban. That was on Feb. 2, 1996 -- just days before Clinton issued the first satellite waivers for Loral Corp. It gets worse. On Feb. 6, just four days after the assault weapon waivers were issued, Wang Jun was ushered into the White House for a personal meeting with Bill Clinton. Wang's escort was Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, who had laundered over $600,000 from Chinese sources for the Clinton Defense Fund. Combined with his campaign donations to the DNC, Trie's total contributions to Clinton coffers topped the million dollar mark in 1996. For that kind of money, it's a good bet Charlie Trie could bring anybody he wanted to the White House. And Charlie Trie wasn't Wang's only solid White House reference. Charlie had worked with longtime F.O.B. Ernest Green to get Wang a U.S. visa, though Wang conveniently forgot to mention that he was a Communist arms dealer on the visa application. Had he disclosed that fact, Wang Jun would never have been let in the country, let alone the White House. The day after Wang's visit with Clinton, Ernie Green's wife donated $50,000 to the DNC. Except for these import waivers, issued two years after Poly's rifles had been banned at the president's own direction, there would have been no legal U.S. market for Wang Jun's guns. Michael Hedges interviewed lawyers involved in negotiating the deal, nearly all of whom were stunned when Poly Technologies got the exclusive approval. "All of a sudden there was a breakthrough. I can't account for it.", said one attorney. Another admitted that the Clinton administration had been tying other arms importers in knots to keep guns out of the country because the president was opposed. He described the abrupt turnaround in U.S. import policy as "highly suspicious". And this was from a guy who was working to make this deal happen. Last year, Hedges told me that his evidence included signed copies of the importation permits for Wang Jun's guns. Between the on-the-record interviews and the documentation, his expose was rock solid. Yet, despite the fact that the implications of his report were absolutely staggering, only one New York or Washington paper thought its readers were entitled to this news. Eleven days later, The New York Daily News followed up on the Wang Jun 100,000 gun story. News Columnist Michael Daly managed to uncover the destination for Wang's 100,000 guns: a Detroit firm which investigators have linked to the Chinese Armed Police. The Chinese Armed Police used similar assault rifles to mow down demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The massive gun shipment would have gone through, flooding America's cities with weapons ruled inappropriate by the Clinton administration, but the deal was suspended in the wake of the aforementioned COSCO connected smuggling operation - which was short-circuited by federal agents just weeks after Wang Jun's importation waivers were granted. On the night of March 18, 1996, undercover Customs and BATF agents accepted delivery of guns smuggled aboard the COSCO ship Empress Phoenix, as part of an ongoing sting operation dubbed "Dragon Fire." The undercover agents had lured the Chinese into making a trial shipment of Chinese machine guns: a dry run set up to establish a working relationship before the Chinese granted access to their full inventory. Besides the smuggled guns, which they recommended for the California street gang market, the Chinese operatives explained that they were ready to sell everything from grenade launchers to shoulder fired Red Parakeet surface to air missiles, which they boasted could "take out a 747". (Coincidentally, a Boeing 747 was taken out over the skies of Long Island just months later.) That March night, federal agents secretly unpacked COSCO crates containing 2,000 Poly Technologies AK-47's delivered from the hold of the Empress Phoenix. It was the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in the history of U. S. law enforcement. With that claim to fame, one might expect the agents responsible for Operation Dragon Fire to be boasting of their unqualified success. However, as the BATF's Dick Stoltz and the Customs Bureau's Matthew King explained all of the above to Vanity Fair Magazine last December, they emphasized that Dragon Fire's goal was much larger. The real targets of their undercover investigation were Poly and Norinco lieutenants who controlled the deal from China and whom Stoltz and King had managed to lure to America for a brief visit. And they suspected Wang Jun's direct involvement. As King told Vanity Fair: "Can you imagine the reactions or how Congress would have voted (on MFN for China) if we had been allowed to keep going? If we had arrested the Norinco officials who had come here to sell Red Parakeet missiles? If Dragon Fire had been able to nail the princelings? This country's China policy would be a hell of a lot different today." So why, instead of stopping with the March 18th gun seizure, didn't they keep going? Stoltz and King had wanted to - but inexplicably, somehow word had leaked about Dragon Fire. First their office got a call from a Los Angeles Times reporter, who shocked them with his detailed knowledge of their supposedly still secret sting. This reporter's silence was purchased with the promise of an even bigger exclusive after the investigation had culminated in indictments of Chinese kingpins. Shortly thereafter, The New York Times called and had to be promised a similar deal to keep the investigation secret. But it was too late. After the second inquiry Stoltz and King realized that their own undercover agents were now in jeopardy. They had to act fast before the entire operation came unraveled. That's why Dragon Fire's ultimate prize turned out to be Chinese AK-47's rather than the Chinese operatives close to arms merchant, Wang Jun. The mystery of the Dragon Fire leak has never been solved. But there are disturbing clues. Reporters for both the L.A. and New York Times worked in Washington, where the only people familiar with Dragon Fire were top government officials. According to Vanity Fair, the journalists involved would reveal only that their tips came from "diplomatic sources". And evidently these reporters weren't the only ones who got the word. Several of Wang Jun's top lieutenants hotfooted it back to China just one jump ahead of federal indictment. One was Robert Ma, chief of Poly Technologies' U.S. subsidiary, who fled just two days before his arrest warrant was executed. Was a federal probe into a massive Chinese arms smuggling operation foiled by insiders who knew the investigation put Clinton's China connection at risk? Is it significant that leaks about an investigation run out of San Francisco came from a Washington source? If so, this would constitute a more blatant (though potentially less dangerous) national betrayal than even Clinton's Loral satellite waivers. If the Loral waivers damaged national security, as a still secret internal Pentagon study reportedly claims, then what national interest, pray tell, was served by sabotaging an investigation into Chinese gun smuggling? And just which Americans would have benefited when the White House tossed it's own gun control policy over the side to welcome in 100,000 outlawed Chinese guns? Though the press has virtually ignored this aspect of the Clinton "China First" policy, House Government Reform and Oversight Chairman Dan Burton has not. Reached Friday on Sean Hannity's New York talk radio show, Burton told me: "We continue to investigate the Wang Jun connection. Our concentration has been on the illegal campaign contributions and Wang Jun is one of the people that we've been looking into. Obviously if there was a quid pro quo where the president signed off on those guns coming into the country in exchange for campaign contributions, that's something that he should be held accountable for and we are looking into that." Quid quo pro or not, this president needs to explain why his administration waived its own gun law for a Chinese princeling arms merchant whose lieutenants were intent on smuggling even more to firepower to American street gangs. Published in the Jun. 1, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-309-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Lone Star FIJA News (fwd) Date: 01 Jun 1998 07:35:07 -0500 (CDT) If your not a member of FIJA join. Some day a jury maybe your only hope for a federal firearm trial, and only a jury who who knows their rights from FIJA has a chance of helping you despited the judges orders. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Texas FIJA Fans, Two pieces of news: o First, we have updated our web site at www.lsfija.org Check it out. Give us feedback, please. Hope to keep on improving as we go. o Second, we will be running several booths at Texas party state conventions: Republican - Tarrant County Convention Center (Fort Worth) on June 12 (Fri) and June 13 (Sat). Democratic - Alamodome (San Antonio) June 28 (Fri) and June 29 (Sat) Libertarian - Fredonia Hotel (Nacogdoches) June 13-14. No booth, but Clay Conrad is speaking for us. Reform - Harvey Hotel (Dallas) June 13. No booths allowed, but distribution of literature allowed. Volunteer needed. American Constitution - Washington-on-the-Brazos State Park Convention Center - 10am - 4pm. June 13 (Sat). No formal booths, but distribution of literature allowed. Volunteer needed. We think we have the Democratic Party Convention covered, but if you are burning to be there let us know. We still need volunteers for the GOP, Reform, and American Constitution Party on 6/12-13. Please let Tom Glass know at 713 467-2989 or reply via email to tomglass@lsfija.org if you can help. We know of at least 6 Senate District conventions that called for Fully Informed Jury Language in the GOP platform, and we have two folks who are or have been on the FIJA list on the GOP platform committee. Toward liberty, Tom Glass President Lone Star FIJA (713) 467-2989 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: To Whom it May Concern Date: 01 Jun 1998 21:15:48 -0700 For those of you who knew of my affiliation (half ownership) of The Idaho Observer, this is to inform you that that affiliation has ceased, as of tonight (June 1, 1998). I've been feeling something funny in the wind from Don Harkins, the editor, for a while now, especially since his girlfriend, Patty Neill, decided she was going to be moving out here this summer, but tonight Don informed me that my services are no longer wanted with The Idaho Observer. Which is interesting, since I essentially do everything there is to do, save the final putting the paper together (a couple of days of work). I've done essentially all the advertising, all the subscriptions, handling the database, the bulk mailing and the preparation thereof, answering the phone while he's at work 8 to 5, *all* the promotion for the paper (shortwave and other publications), etc. etc. etc. In short, he's gonna have his hands full. And why? Who knows? Human beings, especially those that don't know the Lord, do some strange things. I'm actually learning to pretty much take them in stride the older I get. But I must confess, this one was a surprise. But as I say, you take things in stride. Since I will no longer be maintaining the website, there will no doubt *be* no website shortly. Oh well. It had gotten behind what with my recently being married and all anyway. It was a lot of work, and I've been rather proud of it, especially as net folks have stumbled across it and written to compliment us on what we're doing. But all good things must come to an end, I guess. At any rate, I thought you'd all want to know. - Monte (Jefferson Adams) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Gun Control Bills before Congress (fwd) Date: 01 Jun 1998 22:28:52 PST On Jun 01, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, These are the bills before Congress on gun control. I don't know the present status of the bills, but at least you know what we are facing at the federal level. En Agape, Gene ======================================== 1 . Yates Firearm Registration and Crime Prevention Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1998.IH] 2 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that certain muzzle loading firearms are to be treated as antique firearms for purposes of the Federal firearms laws. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3140.IH] 3 . Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.922.IS] 4 . Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2359.IH] 5 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit gunsmiths to obtain a Federal firearms license without having to comply with State or local laws relating to zoning of firearms businesses. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2342.IH] 6 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2722.IH] 7 . Anti-Gun Invasion Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.723.IS] 8 . Anti-Gun Invasion Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1570.IH] 9 . Consumer's Choice Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2734.IH] 10 . Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.27.IH] 11 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt... (Introduced in the House)[H.R.339.IH] 12 . To prevent children from injuring themselves with firearms. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.814.IH] 13 . Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1147.IH] 14 . Personal Safety and Community Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.816.IS] 15 . Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.837.IS] 16 . Firearms Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.788.IH] 17 . Trigger Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2673.IH] 18 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the prospective application of certain prohibitions relating to firearms. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.262.IS] 19 . To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to a government official engaged in official conduct while... (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2255.IH] 20 . Child Firearm Access Prevention Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.1917.IS] 21 . Gun Kingpin Penalty Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.658.IS] 22 . Gun Kingpin Penalty Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1264.IH] 23 . To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to ban the importation of firearms that have been cosmetically altered to avoid the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2702.IH] 24 . To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred... (Introduced in the House)[H.R.26.IH] 25 . To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving stolen firearms. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.992.IS] 26 . To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to government entities. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.445.IH] 27 . Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.133.IS] 28 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.424.IH] 29 . Stop Arming Felons (SAFe) Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1228.IH] 30 . Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1044.IH] 31 . Expressing the sense of the Congress that State and local governments should be encouraged, and have the right, to pass laws and ordinances designed to preserve and protect the safety... (Introduced in the House)[H.CON.RES.70.IH] 32 . Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1074.IH] 33 . Gun Safety Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.116.IH] 34 . To require the national instant criminal background check system to be established and used in connection with firearms transfers by November 28, 1997. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.102.IH] 35 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. (Reported in the House)[H.R.424.RH] 36 . Twelve is Enough Anti-Gunrunning Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.12.IH] 37 . Anti-Gun Trafficking Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.466.IS] 38 . Brady Voluntary Compliance Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2935.IH] 39 . To reform criminal procedure, and for other purposes. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.168.IS] 40 . To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals possessing firearms, and for other purposes. (Passed by the House)[H.R.424.EH] 41 . Violent Crime Control Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.135.IS] 42 . Public Health and Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.787.IH] 43 . Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.136.IS] 44 . Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.796.IS] 45 . Ammunition Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1349.IH] 46 . Ammunition Safety Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.553.IS] 47 . Federal Gang Violence Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.54.IS] 48 . Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.2022.IS] 49 . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.3532.IH] 50 . Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.362.IS] [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Congressional pay raise (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1998 09:40:16 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Congressional Reform Briefings=09=09=09=09June 2, 1998 to subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message: subscribe cong-reform your name to listproc@essential.org -- Groups Send Letter Opposing Congressional Pay Raise =09A coalition opposing a congressional pay raise sent a letter today to House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO). The letter follows: Dear Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt: =09We are writing to oppose yet another congressional pay raise. =20 =09 Taxpayers grow angry when elected officials enrich themselves at public expense. Five months ago, Members of Congress received a generous $3,072 raise. You do not need another. Members of Congress are already paid a regal $136,672 annual salary, plus pensions, perks, and other benefits. =20 =09The American people want leadership by example. They want you to adopt self-restraint and self-discipline to serve the public good. =09Instead, you have given yourselves pay raise after pay raise against the wishes of the American people, who wanted you to have humbler salaries. During the last ten years, House Members gave themselves five pay raises, Senators six. Congressional salaries grew by $47,172 -- about $11,000 above inflation. =09Most Americans have been less fortunate. Many haven't enjoyed a real wage increase in more than a generation. Average private hourly earnings were higher in 1968 =96 30 years ago =96 than they are today, adjusted for inflation.=20 =09Our country is deep in debt. The federal debt is over $5.5 trillion.=20 As a debtor nation, we cannot afford to waste our money on frivolity. =09This is an arrogant, greedy, corrupt affront to the American taxpayers. It will undercut your moral authority to govern. We ask you to publicly reject this pay raise. =09=09=09=09=09=09 =09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09Sincerely, Ralph Nader Gary Ruskin, Director, Congressional Accountability Project=09=09 Paul Jacob, Executive Director, U. S. Term Limits Thomas A. Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Russell Verney, Chairman, Reform Party, and Executive Director, United We Stand America Paul M. Weyrich, President, Free Congress Foundation Ralph DeGennaro, Executive Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense Steve Dasbach, National Chairman, Libertarian Party Following is an article from the June 1, 1998 edition of Roll Call , a Capitol Hill newspaper. Reprinted with permission. =20 Gingrich Pushes for Another Pay Boost Second Straight COLA Could Push Member Salaries Over $140,000 Per Year=20 By Francesca Contiguglia=09=09=09=09=09=09 =20 Opposition has already started to mount to House Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-Ga) call to give another cost-of-living adjustment to Members, who received a $3,073 pay boost last year. =20 During a closed-door meeting before the Memorial Day recess, Gingrich brought up the subject of a COLA with Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo), according to aides. Both sides are planning to discuss the potential ramifications of introducing such a measure in an election year, though it would not take effect until next January. =20 One Democratic leadership aide said the Minority Leader would probably not oppose debate on the issue. "His main concern is that it is done in the open" with a vote, said the aide. =20 It's unclear exactly how big the COLA would be. Last September, Congress passed a 2.3 percent COLA for Members, the first adjustment since 1993, even though it appeared to be a dead issue just a few months before. The increase of $3,073 brought Congressional salaries to $136,700. =20 Although the recess prevented any movement on Gingrich's suggestion, which was first reported by the Associated Press, opponents are already gearing up for the fight. =20 Gary Ruskin of the Congressional Accountability Project has already circulated a letter opposing the measure, and he is urging voters to contact their Representatives to tell them they don't need a raise. =20 "Speaker Gingrich is trying to take advantage of the taxpayers again, and hopefully his colleagues won't follow," said Ruskin, who claimed that Members want "to live like kings." =20 Since Republicans have been accused of running a "do-nothing Congress," Ruskin said that "less work for more pay" seems to be the institution's motto this year. =20 Ruskin added that most Americans have not received a raise in 30 years, saying that average private hourly earnings 30 years ago, when adjusted for inflation, exceed today's average. "The point is most Americans haven't been as fortunate as Congress," he said. =20 And Members are beginning to respond as well. Rep. Phil English (R-Pa) said last week that he opposes the COLA and noted that he refused to take the raise that took effect Jan. 1. =20 And while Rep. Mark Neumann (R-Wis) thinks a COLA would pass this year, he vowed in an interview to oppose it. =20 "Service to our country is not about money, it's about the good of the country," said Neumann, who is the likely Republican challenger to Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) in November. "You should go back to the private sector if you're here about money." =20 Neumann acknowledged that a Congressional pay raise has the potential to become a hot election-year issue, but said, "The facts are that in Washington, only a few seats are contested.... So a lot of people in safe seats will vote for more money." =20 But Congressional aides on both sides of the aisle stressed that the COLA is far from a done deal. "It's in the embryo stage," said a House GOP aide. =20 A Democratic staffer agreed, saying, "I don't think this is the first thing" on the mind of top leaders. "People will talk to other people, but nothing immediate will happen." =20 The Democratic aide said there has been no follow-up to the leaders' meeting and that Gephardt has not yet spoken to any of his colleagues about the issue and is not planning to discuss the issue in the near future. =20 A Republican aide suggested that leadership is learning from its past mistakes and talking to Members before moving ahead with the measure. =20 Several Members were upset about the measure last year, not necessarily because they disagreed with it but because it was brought to the floor without warning. "What are we supposed to do, sit by the desk every minute of the day to see what the leadership is trying to pull?" Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind) said at the time (Roll Call, Sept. 22, 1997). =20 How much Congress might give itself this year is not yet known. Under a law passed in 1989, Members of Congress are entitled to a COLA equal to the base salary pay boost received by federal workers. This adjustment happens automatically unless it is reversed. =20 President Clinton, in his budget request for fiscal 1999, has called for an overall increase of 3.1 percent. That would raise Congressional salaries by $4,237, bringing them up to $140,937. =20 An increase of the current salary by 2.6 percent -- which takes out an additional adjustment known as a locality pay, to which Members are not entitled -- would increase Member pay to $140,254 per year. =20 Copyright =A9 1998 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. =09Please contact your Members of Congress to oppose a congressional pay raise. The congressional switchboard phone number is (202) 224-3121. =20 For congressional e-mail addresses, see the Electronic Activist at . =20 =09The Congressional Accountability Project is a congressional watchdog group affiliated with Ralph Nader. For more information about congressional reform issues or congressional pay and perks, see the Congressional Accountability Project web site at , send e-mail to , or call (202) 296-2787. To subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message: subscribe cong-reform your name to listproc@essential.org PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY Gary Ruskin | gary@essential.org | Congressional Accountability Project | 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite #3A | Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 296-2787 | Fax (202) 833-2406 http://www.essential.org/orgs/CAP/CAP.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: Poll On Women & Guns (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1998 10:33:57 PST On Jun 2, C. D. Tavares wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This announcement really belongs on a national mailing list. All of you women (or women "trapped in men's bodies" at least for today), vote. >Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 18:57:40 -0400 >From: Jim Gonzalez >Subject: Poll On Women & Guns >To: ma-firearms@world.std.com >Sender: ma-firearms-approval@world.std.com >Precedence: list >Reply-To: ma-firearms@world.std.com > > >From Maxi, an online women's 'zine. > > http://www.maximag.com/poll/ > >For the benefit of those without access, the form looks like this: > > The Jonesboro and Oregon shootings make you think that: > > [] We need to campaign for better family values. > [] We need to reduce violence in TV and video games. > [] Forget the NRA, we need more gun control. > [] It's clearly the testosterone hangups of little boys- little > girls don't seem to be the problem. > [] It's all a bunch of media hype, kids today are no more violent > than they're ever been. > [] The shootings are no big deal. Let's get over it. > > Would you ever carry a gun? > > [] Yes, for self defense. Women should. > [] I already do-- I'm a card carrying NRA member. > [] No way in hell. > > How many online women's zines do you read? > > [] All of 'em > [] 5-10 > [] A few, regularly > [] Only this one > [] This is the first time I've ever read a woman's zine! > >The questions reveal a pronounced bias. > > -Jim. > -- Tavares@alum.mit.edu --If you presume that I speak for my company, users.aol.com/Tavares/ write now for my special Investors' Packet! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Loose Ends: OKC, Steven Emerson, Hamas & Bin Laden (fwd) Date: 05 Jun 1998 07:48:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------------- NOTE ABOUT ATTACHED ARTICLE BELOW: So now the DoJ decides to confirm that threats had been made against Steven Emerson's life.... 'Bout time. =20 For those of you who may not remember, Emerson has long been active exposing foreign terrorist activities and organizations within the United States, some of which have operated with both the knowledge and cooperation of the U.S. Intel Community. It was in November 1994 -- a mere five months before the OKC bombing -- that Steven Emerson's PBS production "Jihad in America" aired on national television, exposing (among other things) a Hamas cell operating in Oklahoma City, with connecting groups in both Stillwater and Tulsa, Oklahoma. After this television production, Emerson testified before a Senate Subcommittee. U.S. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Miami, Florida, told the press that she had notified the FBI of Emerson's testimony. She stated that Emerson had described witnessing a meeting in Oklahoma City attended by 3000 "Islamic fundamentalists." =20 According to Lehtinen's press conference, Emerson had testified that a "militant Islamic leader based in Pakistan," Kamal Kelbawi, had addressed the group, saying, "O brothers, the Palestine cause is not a conflict of borders and land only. It is not even a conflict over human ideology. And not over peace. Rather it is an absolute clash of civilizations, between truth and falsehood, between two conducts: one satanic, headed by Jews and their conspirators; and the other religious, carried by Hamas, the Islamic people in general, and the Islamic movement in particular." Then the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. News reports conclusively established that the FBI's early analysis indicative of what was called "the Middle Eastern terrorist signature," and the judgment of other counterterrorism experts pointed towards foreign responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing. CBS News reported shortly after the bombing that the FBI had received claims of responsibility for the attack from at least eight organizations. Seven of the claimants were thought to have Hamas connections.=20 Said Steven Emerson, "There is no smoking gun. But the modus operandi and circumstantial evidence leads in the direction of Islamic Terrorism." The FBI's suspicion of an Islamic Jihad connection was further reinforced by a sobering fact: Oklahoma City is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East.=20 In addition, the United States government has been aware for many years that intelligence agents of foreign nation-states operate in the United States in furtherance of foreign interests against United States citizens. These concerns were brought before Congress in a still classified top secret staff report prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations. Portions of this top secret report were made public by the press and published by the Washington Post in 1979. The report analyzes the thorny foreign relations problem concerning illegal actions on the part of foreign intelligence agents against citizens in the United States. The government seeks a balance between enforcing domestic laws, even against foreign intelligence agents, and foreign policy concerns and recriminations against U.S. intelligence agents in other countries. The subcommittee report, according to the Washington Post, examined cases of harassment and surveillance as well as suspected assassination plots against United States citizens by the intelligence agencies of Chile, Iran, the Philippines, the Republic of China (Taiwan), the former Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. To choose just one example, the Iranian SAVAK, at the peak its influence under the Shah, had at least 13 full-time case officers running a network of informers and infiltration covering 30,000 Iranian students on United States college campuses. The head of the SAVAK agents in the United States operated under the cover of an attach=E9 at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations, with the FBI, CIA, and State Department FULLY AWARE of these activities. Thus, the presence of foreign intelligence operatives in the United States is a fact of international foreign policy and for such operatives to carry out the policies of their foreign sponsors is not unusual.=20 Steven Emerson -- for his continued exposure of foreign terrorists and terrorist organizations operating in the United States, and particularly for his information pertaining to foreign terrorist involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, has earned a standing death threat from Hamas and its sub-groups... a situation which the Department of Justice has, until today, denied. THOSE THREATS BEGAN IN 1995 when Emerson publicly exposed the connections between the OKC bombing and the OKC/Philippine/Pakistani/Hamas terrorist groups. Those threats have continued to the present day. =20 One more thing: =20 On June 3rd, 1998 - TWO DAYS AGO - the U.S. State Department advised Americans to use caution when traveling in and around Saudi Arabia because of threats made last week by Osama Bin Laden, long identified as a major financier of Hamas terrorism on a global scale.=20 In February, 1995, United States authority named Osama bin Laden among 172 unindicted co-conspirators with the eleven (11) Muslims charged for the World Trade Center bombing and the associated plot to blow up other New York landmarks. Bin Laden has long been a major financial backer of the Abu Sayyaf, (sometimes known as the Philippine Liberation Army, a subgroup of the Palestine Liberation Army), with intimate ties to Hamas in the Middle East, the United States, and Pakistan. Abdullah Hakim Murad, a member of Bin Laden's Hamas group in the Philippines (led by Ramzi Yousef), while on trial in New York City for conspiracy to blow up American airliners, readily admitted to a prison guard that he was a member of the Liberation Army, and that the Liberation Army was responsible for the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma Cit= y.=20 The prison guard had asked Hakim Murad what he thought about the bombing when it was reported on the radio, and, according to an FBI 302, Murad responded to the guard's question by stating that the Liberation Army (Hamas) was responsible for the bombing in OKC. Murad also confirmed this in writing. Specifically, the prison guard was asked "What was the identification of Liberation Army referred to by Murad?" He stated, according to the FBI interview notes, "It was the Palestine Liberation Army and/or the Islamic Jihad which Murad was referring to. . . . This army is associated with Hamas and based in Lebanon."=20 NOW YOU TELL ME: Why did the Justice Department wait until the date of Nichols' sentencing to publicly admit that Emerson's information has been correct, that his exposure of state-sponsored terrorism in the United States has been accurate? And if it had not been accurate, why would anyone bother killing him? Does anybody want to know what evidence exists to connect Terry Nichols to the Abu Sayyaf (PLO/Hamas) group in the Philippines? There's plenty of it. The FBI knows. The CIA knows. The State Department knows. The Department of Justice knows. Judge Matsch knows. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals knows. Why doesn't the American public know?=20 =2E..Oh.... I forgot. It doesn't matter now. Nichols was sentenced to life in prison today so it's all over. We can forget about it. We don't need to study it. And if enough times passes, we will forget all of this information. And when another incident of state-sponsored terrorism occurs in the United States, we'll all scratch our heads and say, "Hmmm... seems like I vaguely remember something...." Source: PR Newswire Setting the Record Straight: Terrorism Expert Steven Emerson's Statements In Senate Testimony Backed up by U.S. Justice Department=20 WASHINGTON, June 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The following release was issued by the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professional= s: The U.S. Department of Justice confirms that Federal law enforcement authorities discovered a threat to investigative journalist Steven Emerson's life in 1995. In a June 1, 1998 letter to the editor of the Tampa-based Weekly Planet, Justice Department Public Affairs Director Bert Brandenburg corrected comments attributed to Department spokesman John Russell by Weekly Planet journalist John Sugg. Sugg quoted Russell as contradicting Emerson's statement in his February 1998 Senate testimony that he was the target of a radical Islamic hit squad. Mr. Brandenburg wrote, "... we have checked with the FBI and determined that the FBI did in fact receive information concerning a threat in 1995 and that they so advised Mr. Emerson of the danger to his life. Mr. Russell conveyed the information he had, but we do regret that his answer turned out to be inaccurate." Brandenburg continued: "In response to the reporter's queries, Russell also recalls noting that his ignorance of Mr. Emerson's financial wherewithal made Emerson seem an enigma. Although Mr. Russell may have erroneously suggested that Mr. Emerson lives a lavish lifestyle, the Justice Department has no reason to believe that such a conclusion is true.= " Using the Weekly Planet article as evidence of Emerson's "misstatements," the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called for an investigation into his testimony. This attack is part of CAIR's effort to discredit those who expose radical Islamic links in the United States. Former FBI Assistant Director and Chief of the Counterterrorism section, Steven Pomerantz, wrote about CAIR in a special report on radical Islamic groups in the Spring 1998 issue of The Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International. According to Pomerantz, "The modus operandi of CAIR has been to falsely tar as 'anti-Muslim' the US government, counter-terrorist officials, writers, journalists and others who have investigated or exposed the threat of Middle East based terrorism. In particular, CAIR has targeted Steven Emerson, the producer of 'Jihad in America' and someone I, and many others in the counter-terrorist community, consider to be among the foremost experts on Middle East terrorist groups operating in the United States." Pomerantz also wrote, "CAIR has defended individuals involved in terrorist violence, including Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzouk, and has embraced people who have engaged in promoting violence or hateful and bigoted rhetoric."=20 A look at CAIR's roots help illustrate its radical links. Prior to becoming CAIR's Executive Director, Nihad Awad, was the editor of The Muslim World Monitor, a publication of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). Speaking at a March 22, 1994 panel discussion at Barry University in Florida while at IAP, Awad stated, "I am in support of the Hamas movement..= =2E." Writing in the March 1995 Middle East Quarterly, former FBI Assistant Director and Head of FBI Investigations, Oliver "Buck" Revell stated: "Numerous front groups supporting Hamas have been established in the United States and several collect funds as tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations... The Islamic Association of Palestine... is one such organization." According to an April 8, 1996 Dallas Morning News article, IAP has reprinted the Hamas charter, which calls for the killing of Jews, praised Hamas in its publications, and produced Hamas videos. Steven Pomerantz's article will be available on the Web site Friday, June 5, 1998. The Web address is http://www.securitynet.net. SOURCE International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals CONTACT: Gary Skulnik of the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals, 703-761-6708, or e-mail, terrornewswire@hotmail.com NOTE TO EDITORS: For additional information and/or copies of the Justice Department letter or the other articles cited above, please call the contact below. Web Site: http://www.securitynet.net =A91998 PR Newswire.=20 ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.=20 ----------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Fratrum: Authentication? Full text attached of EO (fwd) Date: 05 Jun 1998 11:37:00 PST On Jun 5, CHURSEY@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is the full text of the Executive Order in Question, found at the url that Ed supplied. Cliff White House Press Release FEDERALISM THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (Birmingham, England) ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release May 14, 1998 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - FEDERALISM By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution, between the Federal Government and the States that was intended by the Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States. (b) "Policies that have federalism implications" refers to Federal regulations, proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States or on the relationship, or the distribution of power and responsibilities, between the Federal Government and the States. (c) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5). Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles: (a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is premised upon a system of checks and balances. (b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the Constitution. (c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual liberty. Preserving State authority provides an essential balance to the power of the Federal Government, while preserving the supremacy of Federal law provides an essential balance to the power of the States. (d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the limitations in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives. (e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. States and local governments are often uniquely situated to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly. (f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches to public policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy is often furthered when individual States and local governments are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. Uniform, national approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems. (g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility of -- and should encourage opportunities for -- States, local governments, private associations, neighborhoods, families, and individuals to achieve personal, social, environmental, and economic objectives through cooperative effort. Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this order, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications: (a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. (b) Agencies may limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments only after determining that there is constitutional and legal authority for the action. (c) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by States and local governments, the Federal Government should grant States and local governments the maximum administrative discretion possible. Any Federal oversight of such State and local administration should not unnecessarily intrude on State and local discretion. (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries. (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs. (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards. (4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer. (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties. (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States. (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities. (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations. (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments. Sec. 4. Consultation. (a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials and other representatives of State and local governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. (b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has federalism implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments, unless: (1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State or local government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or (2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation, (A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with representatives of affected States and local governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and (B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency by States or local governments. Sec. 5. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers. (a) Agencies shall review the processes under which States and local governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes. (b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by a State or local government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State or local level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate. (c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by the agency. If the application for a waiver is not granted, the agency shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and the reasons therefor. (d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency. Sec. 6. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order. Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. (b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and Review"), Executive Order 12988 ("Civil Justice Reform"), and OMB Circular A-19. (c) Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987, and Executive Order 12875 of October 26, 1993, are revoked. (d) The consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of this order shall complement the Executive order entitled, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," being issued on this day. (e) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1998. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #88 (fwd) Date: 07 Jun 1998 09:23:35 PST On Jun 07, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia June 7, 1998 #88 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html CLINTON GOES TO CHINA As the suspect-in-chief flies off to continue relations with his second most famous campaign contributor, Clinton may be about to learn a new political word: Blackmail. Communist China's President Jiang Zemin sees Santa Claus coming in the form of Bill Clinton. But, in this case it's Jiang who's making a list and checking it twice. And a very expensive list it will be. For instance, Jiang has already said he will seek a pledge from Clinton that the U.S. will not interfere with Red China's dealings with Taiwan. Red China wants Taiwan back in the communist fold. Soon. And now they have a military strong enough to force that -- as long as we stay out of it. And, evidently, the Clinton Administration will. Last week, the South China Morning Post reported Jiang as saying: "The US side has very clearly pledged not to support . . . the independence of Taiwan or its re-admittance into international organizations." And sure enough, word is that White House aides have already started indicating informally that Washington does not support Taiwanese independence or its re-entry into the UN. So, what's the quid pro quo here? What will Clinton get in return for giving up Taiwan to communist dictators? China will not give Clinton up, that's what. We already know that one laundering route for illegal Chinese campaign funds the Democratic National Committee accepted ran through Ted Sioeng of Indonesia. Sioeng, an operative of the world's largest producer of cigarettes -- Pagoda Red Mountain, which is a Chinese government-owned tobacco company -- ponied up at least $400,000 in illegal funds. The Senate hearing report says that Ted Sioeng "worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese government," and that $200,000 of the $400,000 given to the Democrats by Sioeng and his family was directly "funded by transfer from overseas accounts." Ted Sioeng just happens to be a close friend of Mochtar and James Riady, who own the infamous Lippo Group. Both Riadys are friends of Clinton from the Arkansas days. They are also, interestingly enough, partners with the communist Chinese military in at least two major ventures. So, the Riadys felt confident to help by acting as go between for at least that $400,000 contribution. And, as of now, the Riadys and Sioeng are all suspected of serving as intelligence agents for Beijing. Cozy, isn't it? So, if Clinton does not give up Taiwan, it would be very easy for the communist Chinese government to give up Clinton. There's more, though. A lot more. Already indicted for money laundering Chinese funds to the Democratic National Committee campaign war- chest are Johnny Chung, Maria Hsia and Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. Conveniently, while James Riady lived in California, he had close ties with Maria Hsia -- who is best remembered for laundering money in conjunction with Al Gore at the California Hsi Lai Temple fund-raiser. Hsia has also worked for a People's Republic of China diplomatic post in the U.S. Riady saw contributions to U.S. political campaigns as a way of advancing his family's Asian business concerns. Huang served as Riady's lieutenant for political matters and Hsia provided Riady and Huang with access to Democratic politicians -- a number of Democratic politicians over the years. The Buddhist temple proved to be a ready cash cow for campaign funds that they milked often. That was all quite illegal, of course. But, there was Al Gore anyway. Johnny Chung is now in the news for admitting that he received $300,000 from Red Chinese Army Colonel Liu Chao-ying, who also happens to be an executive with a Chinese government owned aerospace company. Her father was China's chief general, and a member of the politburo. He wanted American technology. Chung introduced Liu to Clinton at a California fund-raiser. Charlie Trie, of course, is another Arkansas friend of Bill. Trie, along with his good buddies John Huang and Johnny Chung, were responsible for contributing at least $2.2 million in illegal campaign contributions, much of it coming from foreign businessmen with strong ties to the government of Communist China. Friend of Bill, John Huang, was the head of U.S. operations for the Riady's Lippo Group before Clinton installed him as a mid-level Commerce Department official. Huang was said to enjoy extraordinary access to Clinton. And as part of the Commerce Department, he attended dozens of briefings and was privy to all types of classified information -- all along maintaining close ties to the Lippo Group. Along with Maria Hsia, Huang set up the fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Temple near Los Angeles, where they laundered $140,000 in illegal campaign funds with Al Gore. The Riadys have been friends and supporters of Clinton since his days as Arkansas governor. At the same time, as the Thompson Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report on campaign finance abuses states, the Riadys: "have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency." Yeah. And as always happens when a number of government officials are involved in wrongdoing, the specific intelligence information on which the report's conclusions are based are said to be withheld from the document 'to protect sources and methods' used to gather it. In other words, the dirt was swept under that huge carpet of "national security" so the voters will not learn exactly how filthy some in government actually are. The FBI and CIA have agreed on a watered down report, but the Justice Department does not want even that released to the American public. However, we did learn that the Riadys relationship with Chinese intelligence is primarily "based on business interests." Which means that the Riadys trade communist Chinese assistance for business opportunities "in exchange for large sums of money and other help," like spying and compromising politicians. Just as an aside here: If this very same scenario had happened back in the 1960's with agents of the Soviet Union involved, rather than communist Chinese agents as are today, dozens of Americans and Russians would still be buried deep in some federal prison. Yet today, the Department of Justice performs a slip-shod investigation only including the periphery players, no one is in prison, and no elected officials are under investigation. And, to date, Janet Reno refuses to appoint an independent counsel for this matter. Knowing all this, and knowing that Communist China's President Jiang Zemin knows all this as well as the activities of a couple dozen other Chinese nationals involved in campaign money laundering, Clinton goes to China. Therefore, expect the whole of the Chinese wish list to be filled. -- For more information, visit the Senate campaign finance report at: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/sireport.htm PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Over the past two years we have pointed out numerous inconsistencies between the "original intent" of the authors of our Constitution and the actions of today's central government. Even when we consider that the "shall nots" in the Constitution have been interpreted down to "maybe nots," there are still gross inconstancies between the written text and the actions of government. This makes understanding the law of the land very difficult for the average American citizen, and needs to be corrected. Over the years we, along with thousands of others, have asked numerous elected officials why they do not obey the Constitution, and have never received an adequate reply. The fact is, were government to follow the Constitution to the letter, 90 or more regulatory agencies would instantly disappear, hundreds of federal programs would end, and the central government would lose much of it's power over the American people and State and local governments. Therefore, those in Washington have no intention of ever again obeying the Constitution. And, unless we the people are ready for civil war, we may as well quit asking. That being said, perhaps we should take another approach. Below are proposals for a few simple amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These amendments would go far in adjusting our Constitution to better reflect the way today's central government is actually operated. Towards that end, we suggest that all readers copy this text and send it to their three Members of Congress: ** Congress shall take careful notice of the limits on legislative authority enumerated in the Constitution, except that Congress may also legislate on those matters it determines could or would help a segment of the American people. ** The right of the people to move about in society and function as they please unimpeded by police shall not be violated, except at airports and other public areas where police feel the necessity to stop and search citizens. ** Certain controls being immediately necessary to the internal control of the people of the United States, the President may unilaterally legislate instantly by executive order. ** The timely collection of tax moneys being necessary for the efficient operation of the central government, the safeguards guaranteed the people by the Constitution shall not apply to tax collectors. ** State and local governments being incompetent in the stewardship of their regional areas, all land management shall be controlled by the central government. ** A well organized state requiring that crimes against government be enforced to the fullest extent of the law, government shall always brandish arms superior to those allowed the people. ** The expediency of the police being necessary to a perfectly controlled society, a well armed paramilitary standing federal police force shall be maintained. ** Technical issues requiring control being above the competency of Members of Congress, the executive regulatory agencies shall unilaterally legislate in the form of rules and regulations. ** Government agents shall respect the Constitutional rights of all citizens equally, except in those matters where legislation or regulation or executive orders have suspended or altered specific Constitutional rights. ** Challenging candidates being difficult to beat in a fair election, the incumbent shall be authorized to accept campaign contributions from those with business before government. ** The restraints of the Constitution impeding the investigation of crimes in some circumstances, policing agencies shall unilaterally impose fines in the form of asset forfeiture on suspects not able to be charged with a crime. ** All tax moneys collected shall be used to benefit the citizens of these United States, except for that part of the budget the legislative and/or executive branch determines shall be given to foreign governments and/or multinational businesses and organizations. ** The central government shall respect all Constitutional rights in respect to all citizens, except that the President may suspend all or part of the Constitution at any time by emergency executive order. ** The American people being unable to shop intelligently, the central government shall regulate all products and the means of commerce. ** Local school boards having demonstrated an inability to conform to proper education standards, the federal government shall regulate all schools. ** A well regulated citizenry being necessary to the security of the state, the authority of government shall not be questioned. GUNS: ONE ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM In our form of government, it is said that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the United States Supreme Court is the interpreter of that law. Originally, all law enforcement agencies and other departments of government were required to follow the opinions of the Supreme Court as if they were the written text of the Constitution. That system worked rather well until Franklin D. Roosevelt became president. FDR's fights with the Court are legendary, and it is because he ultimately won over the Court that we now have strict central government control of everything. Nevertheless, legally speaking, all departments of government are to honor all Supreme Court opinions. One would think that the legal-eagles at the Justice Department would know this, and they do. However, when Justice does not wish to honor the opinions of the Supreme Court, they just ignore them. A case in point is the Brady Act. Last year in "Printz et al v. U.S." (95-1478, 1997) the Court said that the central government may not require that county sheriffs and other public officials perform background checks to screen purchasers of handguns. "We held in 'New York' [91-543, 1992] that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." That lasted about two weeks. Then the central government, through the Justice Department and the BATF, requested that the Brady checks be completed anyway. And, in most areas of the country, they still are. Now comes the next step in oppressive gun control. The Attorney General announced it in the Federal Register of June 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 107) http://www.jya.com/doj060498.txt "The 'Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act' (Brady Act), requires the Attorney General to establish by November 30, 1998, 'a national instant criminal background check system that any [firearms] licensee may contact, by telephone or by other electronic means in addition to the telephone, for information, to be supplied immediately, on whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law.' "The United States Department of Justice is publishing a proposed rule for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to establish policies and procedures for ensuring the privacy and security of this system and to implement a NICS appeals policy for persons who have been denied the purchase of a firearm because of information in the NICS they believe to be erroneous or incorrect. Specifically, this rule will detail policies for validating NICS data, storing, accessing, and querying records in the system, retaining and destroying NICS information, and correcting erroneous data in the system. "Written comments must be received on or before September 2, 1998. "All comments concerning this proposed rule should be mailed to: Mr. Emmet A. Rathbun, NICS Project Manager, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module C-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-0147." Telephone number: (304) 625-2000." The problem is, the central government has no Constitutional authority to do this. "U.S. v. Lopez" (93-1260, 1995) was right on target here: "To uphold the Government's contention that [the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990] is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States." When an object is no longer in interstate commerce, it may not be regulated by the central government. And anyone of reasonable intelligence would quickly realize that your local gun shop is not an interstate commerce concern any more than is the neighborhood restaurant frying up chicken that was purchased from a vender who originally bought them in another state. However, based on past history, we must believe that the Justice Department is serious about these new oppressive rules. When Randy Weaver altered the length of a couple gun barrels about a half-inch shorter then government allows, the Justice Department came to kill him -- and did kill members of his family. And the massacre at Waco was brought about simply because government agents "suspected" the church residents neglected to pay the required $200 tax on weapons they were "thought" to possess. These gun control laws are but an outward sign of the malignancy permeating the central government. When we add willful disobedience of the Constitution and indifference to Court opinions to the mounting evidence of numerous large government concentration camps and the fact that rogue Army and Marine units are practicing attacking American citizens, it appears that we have a serious problem looming. This, in turn, is evidenced by the attitudes expressed in recent statements of the President and Attorney General. Today, they freely, publicly, and without question, label Americans who support our Constitution as anti-government extremists. THE RESULT OF STUPID LAWS You can't help but feel sorry for those kids. I mean, how would you like to be a seven or eight year old kid and moved to a different country, with different customs and a new language? Bummer. Then, how about they tell you that you have to go to school anyway, that it's the law. Worse yet, you know that you're going to stay in the new country, but the teachers teach you in the old- country's language anyway. That's got to be scary. Damn stupid, too. As a child growing up in the old neighborhood, most neighbors spoke a language other than English. It was Polish next door and with most of my friends. At the little market on the corner, it was Italian. One friend stumbling with English was from Germany, another was from the French area of Canada. We had a number of Russians around and even a family from Turkey. But, in school, we all -- no matter what nationality our parents were -- struggled to diagram those very same complex sentences in English. No student ever got a break on that. I can still remember the teacher's words when once there was a minor protest: "You are here. You will learn proper English." And so we did. So, by 12 years old, we all had a working command of the English language. Not perfect, of course -- we were still kids, after all. But every kid in the neighborhood knew all the words to at least a dozen patriotic songs and the Fats Domino, Bill Haley and Elvis songs. And there were no accents to be heard among the young teen set. We took pride in that. Better yet, when the next wave of immigrants came they were encouraged to learn English even faster. It was the same with prayer in school. We did it. Every day. Just after the Pledge of Allegiance. We all had to say the words to the Pledge of Allegiance, and we took turns leading the class for that. But no one even had to say the words to a prayer if they didn't wish. Everyone was expected, however, to stand and bow their head. That prayer was never a problem for any of us because there was an accepted rendition that (we thought) was used by all. That is, till a substitute teacher said it differently one day. We laughed. But, that turned out to be a good thing, too. Kids asked questions of parents, priests, ministers and rabbis. And, from that we learned new things about other people. I guess the point of all this is to relate that once upon a time there was a better way. Government schools were actually local school board and PTA run schools that supported the neighborhood. When someone wanted to bow their head and say Grace at lunch, the polite response from those of us who did not say Grace very often was to stop eating and respect their moment. This everyone did -- as long as the person saying Grace didn't take too long about it. And even when the Jewish kids did something differently, no one ever said anything because every Polish and Russian kid in the neighborhood knew all about the Warsaw Ghetto. It took government to change this relationship. Generally, when I was a kid, if you spoke a language other than English in front of people who could not understand what you were saying, someone might smack you up-side the head for being impolite. However, if you bothered someone's religion, getting smacked was probably a sure thing. That was called meanness, and not tolerated. I took government meddling to change that. When I was a young adult traveling, they called people visiting a foreign country the ugly Americans when they could not speak the language. Today, people from those very same countries come here and refuse to learn English. So I ask: What shall we call them? If we are to keep an English speaking country, all government business must be conducted in English only. That includes the issuing of all licenses, voting, and especially teaching in government schools -- extracurricular tutoring excepted. And, if we are to keep a country with freedom of religion, government must not even comment on the issue. Else, we have some sort of hybrid. Hundreds of students of many nationalities still remember Mrs. Sharon's English class, Mr. Gazley's American government class and our Principal, Mrs. O'Hara, leading a prayer and enforcing discipline with a stern kindness not often found lately. There was no need for them to be our nationality or religion. That was not important to anyone. It was simply because they were outstanding teachers that everyone prospered. Times have changed, but not for the best. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Another Poll (fwd) Date: 07 Jun 1998 12:19:34 PST On Jun 07, Ronald W. Hambrick wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here's another poll we ought to concentrate on: http://www.worldnet.att.net/poll/survey.html [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun Violence Prevention Act--Brady II (fwd) Date: 07 Jun 1998 23:39:15 PST On Jun 8, R.J.K. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY TO INTRODUCE COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION TO KEEP FIREARMS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN At a press conference on Wednesday, May 6, 1998, Sarah Brady and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4) were joined by four mothers who have lost a child to gun violence. At that time, Representative McCarthy announced that she will be introducing, in the next few weeks, a comprehensive piece of legislation that will address all areas of concern about children's access to firearms. This legislation will be introduced in mid-June. Please call your Representative and demand that he/she denounce this draconian legislation. The Gun Violence Prevention Act--Brady II Brady II is a comprehensive approach to enacting gun confiscation. Brady II will stem the flow of guns and ammunition by: a) Requiring the licensing of handgun owners and the registration of all handgun transfers, including private sales; b) Limiting handgun purchases to one per month; c) Strengthening the dealer licensing system so that "kitchen table" dealers will be put out of business; d) Requiring that ammunition be sold only through licensed dealers, and that it only be sold to license holders; and e) Requiring that licensed dealers sell only at their place of business--thereby reducing the number of guns sold at gun shows. Brady II will deter possession of guns by high-risk persons by: a) Adding new categories of prohibited buyers--convicted spouse and child abusers; b) Prohibiting transfer of handguns to and possession by minors under the age of 21 and maybe up to 24; c) Imposing criminal penalties on gun owners who leave guns accessible to children under the age of 16; d) Making it more difficult for convicted felons to legally own a gun; e) Requiring an arsenal license for those who are stockpiling guns and ammunition. Brady II will prevent unintentional shootings by: a) Requiring safety training as a condition of receiving a license; b) Holding parents responsible for proper storage of their weapons--and holding them liable when they do not; and c) Requiring gun manufacturers to install certain safety features in every gun--including load indicators and magazine safeties. Brady II will restrict the distribution of guns and ammunition designed for crime by: a) Prohibiting the low-quality, easily concealable handguns known as Saturday Night Specials, the gun most often used in crime; and b) Halting the sale and manufacture of non-sporting ammunition, like the "Dragon's breath" bullet, and large caliber bullets. Brady II will strengthen enforcement of existing federal laws by: a) Allowing gun violence victims to sue gun law violators in federal court for damages caused by gun dealers selling guns to prohibited buyers; b) Requiring registration of handgun transfers so that traces of guns used in crime will no longer result in dead ends; c) Closing the loophole that allows the unregulated sale of firearm parts; and d) Requiring common carriers to check a dealer's license before delivery. Licenses (or permits, as they are often called) are issued by governments for purposes of regulating the transfer or possession of a handgun or firearm. License or permit holders may be issued a simple permit or a card, similar to a driver's license, which contains a picture ID and other identifying data, including address and date-of-birth. The license may be generally applicable to all handguns or firearms or may be limited to a specific gun. Licenses may be issued for life or for a limited period ((e.g. 2 years (both subject to revocation)). Licensing requirements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They may include such things as age limitations; proof of residency (which stops buyers and gunrunners from going interstate); fingerprint identification; a firearms safety test or course; and a criminal and/or mental health background check(s). The length of time required to obtain a license may vary. Licensing also makes it possible to regulate private or secondary transfers of handguns or firearms. The licensing requirement of Brady II ensures that even private purchasers will be subject to a background check, and that those who sell handguns to unlicensed individuals are breaking federal law. Gun owners, will be required to record any subsequent sale of the gun. Under Brady II, any person selling a handgun without recording and reporting the sale will be subject to prosecution. Registration is just the first step towards confiscation. Today, eleven states provide for the registration of handguns or firearms: Hawaii North Carolina Maryland Oregon Michigan Pennsylvania Mississippi South Carolina New Hampshire Washington New York These laws may prevent law-abiding citizens from having access to guns and there could be an attempt to disarm residents in these states or the united States with full registration if the president declares it. Registration applies to a specific handgun or firearm. Registration will require owners of handguns or firearms register them by serial number and description with local and/or state police. Registration, will not be limited to the registering of handgun or firearm transfers. Under this stricter approach, handguns or firearms are registered when they are sold or otherwise transferred. Information on the sale or transfer, including the name and address of the purchaser, is sent to local or state police by the dealer (if done through a gun store) or by the individual seller. The required registration of all handgun transfers, together with full licensing, will make it possible to identify and prosecute those who illegally sell or transfer guns to criminals, youth and other prohibited purchasers. Requiring the registration of secondary transfers allows for faster tracing of weapons used in crimes and puts "straw purchasers" and illegal gun dealers at risk of criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits for selling guns to prohibited purchasers. Brady II raises the fee (presently $200 for 3 years) for Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) to $1,000 per year--an increase that would reduce substantially the number of FFLs while giving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) the additional resources needed to adequately regulate gun dealers. Today there are only 240 ATF inspectors to monitor the activities of more than 280,000 federally-licensed gun dealers. Brady II also imposes stricter requirements on gun dealers. Dealers would be required to: 1) make all sales from their licensed business premise, stopping the sales from car trunks and "kitchen tables;" and 2) carry liability insurance to cover damages resulting from the wrongful or negligent transfer of a handgun. Brady II will reduce citizens from buying or possessing firearms. It will require the buyer of a handgun to get a license, pass a safety test, and record any subsequent sale, but that's no different or burdensome than what we ask of those who want to drive a car. This will keep guns out of the hands of children, convicted felons and those who have a history of domestic violence. Look at what we have done over the past twenty-five years to reduce automobile deaths. We tightened up the licensing requirements for drivers. We built safer cars and safer highways. And we prosecuted drunk drivers. As a result, the auto fatality rate dropped by 36 percent. And we can do the same thing with firearms. We can license gun purchasers, we can build safer guns, and we can vigorously prosecute those who illegally sell guns to children and criminals. And that will save lives. These minimum standards do not stop states from maintaining or establishing stricter standards or requirements. This is how each state measures up, according to Handgun Control, Inc. Each state was carefully rated both for the existence of five types of legislation that protect children from guns, and also for the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of that legislation. The five types of legislation include: 1) Carrying Concealed Weapons law 2) Juvenile Handgun Possession law 3) Juvenile Handgun Sale/Transfer Prohibition law 4) Child access prevention law 5) "Local Rights" law, or "Preemption" Alabama -- D Alaska -- D-minus Arizona -- D Arkansas -- D California -- B Colorado -- C Connecticut -- B Delaware - C Florida -- C-minus Georgia -- D Hawaii -- B-minus Idaho -- D Illinois -- B Indiana -- D Iowa -- B-minus Kansas -- B-minus Kentucky -- F Louisiana -- F Maine -- D Maryland -- B-minus Massachusetts -- B+ Michigan -- D+ Minnesota -- C Mississippi -- D Missouri -- C Montana -- F Nebraska -- B-minus Nevada -- D+ New Hampshire -- D+ New Jersey -- B New Mexico -- C New York - C North Carolina -- C-minus North Dakota -- D Ohio -- C Oklahoma -- D Oregon - D Pennsylvania -- D Rhode Island -- C South Carolina -- D+ South Dakota -- D Tennessee -- D+ Texas -- D Utah -- D Vermont -- D-minus Virginia -- C Washington -- C-minus West Virginia -- D Wisconsin - C+ Wyoming -- F More information will be available at the website, http://www.handguncontrol.org - - UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES _____________________________________ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are incline to obey the law. - [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Joe Farah on the Second Date: 08 Jun 1998 06:47:01 -0500 Make http://www.worldnetdaily.com your home page, and support Joe Farah and his crew! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980608.btl.semi_auto_assau.html ------------------ Monday, June 8, 1998 The semi-automatic assault media The following column was adapted from remarks Farah delivered to the National Rifle Association Convention in Philadelphia yesterday. PHILADELPHIA -- Three months after I took over as editor of the Sacramento Union, then, in 1990, the oldest daily in the West, Howard Kurtz, the media critic of the Washington Post wrote the first column his paper had ever devoted to my paper in its 145-year history. Kurtz's intentions were to sound the alarm on a dangerous development in California's state capital. It seemed a daily newspaper was marching to the beat of its own drummer -- not playing by the rules established in elite and secret conclaves at Columbia University or in studies commissioned by the Gannett Foundation or the Pew Charitable Trusts. One of Kurtz's biggest gripes with me was the fact that I banned the use of the term "assault weapon" from the pages of the Sacramento Union. Instead of this phrase, our reporters and editorial writers would be required to be more precise in their language. Did they mean "semi-automatic weapons"? Did they mean "fully automatic weapons"? Or were they simply referring to guns that looked real mean? What this little anecdote illustrates is that the traditional role of the press as watchdog of government has been stood on its head. Today, the watchdogs of the press are more likely to be guarding their industry's own politically correct mythologies and pathologies. The fact is that the establishment press in this country is constantly bombarding our senses with lies about guns. Even worse is the way it carefully and systematically censors real news that could actually end up saving the lives of Americans. For instance, when was the last time you read a story in your local newspaper or saw a TV news report about someone who used a gun defensively and effectively? I can't remember the last time. Yet, such incidents occur some 2.5 million times a year. How often have you heard this argument against gun ownership? Friends or relatives are the most likely killers -- or, more precisely, 58 percent of murder victims are killed by relatives or acquaintances. According to the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's reporting, most victims are, indeed, classified as knowing their killer. However, using such definitions, the FBI includes drug buyers killing drug dealers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, etc. When such non-acquaintance killings are actually taken out of the equation, it turns out only 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors or roommates. Who's cooking the numbers? And why? The media have also whipped up a lot of hysteria about concealed handgun permits. The perception has been created that, if such permits were made more readily available, there would be shoot-'em-ups at every street corner in America. The fact of the matter is that millions of people already have concealed handgun permits. Yet only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled self-defense. If you believe the major media, you would think that a household gun is more likely to kill you or a member of your family than an intruder. Once again, lies, damn lies and statistics. Overwhelmingly, people killed in their homes are killed by intruder's guns, not their own. No more than 4 percent of gun death victims can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. We hear a lot from the news media about "rights" -- both real and imagined. Yet, one of America's actual, constitutionally guaranteed rights is under assault by the media as never before. The press responds to gun issues in Pavlovian-style, with semi-automatic, rapid-fire disinformation. The government knows better, the media tell us. Individuals can't be trusted to make intelligent and mature decisions about protecting themselves, the press claims. We'd all be a lot safer if there were fewer guns around, they suggest. It makes you wonder: Why is a class of people who make their living under the protections of the First Amendment, so willing to give up our rights under the Second Amendment? ------------------ Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: More on Steven Emerson (fwd) Date: 08 Jun 1998 07:55:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Source: US Newswire Fla. Editor Responds to Supporters of 'Jihad' Journalist U.S. Newswire 5 Jun 13:59 Florida Editor Responds to Supporters of 'Jihad' Journalist To: National Desk, Media Writer Contact: Council on American-Islamic Relations, 202-659-2247 or 202-659-2254 (fax); E-mail: cair1(At)ix.netcom.com URL: http://www.cair-net.org WASHINGTON, June 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The editor of a Florida newspaper has responded to claims put forward in a news release issued by colleagues of Steven Emerson, the controversial journalist who produced the 1994 PBS program "Jihad in America." The release, issued by the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals (IACSP), quoted from a letter by a Justice Department official that purportedly supports recent statements Emerson made in testimony before a February Senate subcommittee hearing on terrorism. (Contact CAIR to receive a copy of the letter.) In that testimony, Emerson claimed "an actual hit team had been dispatched from another country" to assassinate him. He also claimed that law enforcement officials told him he "could get permission to enter the Witness Security Program." In a statement published on the Internet, John Sugg, senior editor of the Miami Weekly Planet newspaper, defended a recent article in which he questioned these claims and made reference to other allegations against Emerson by wire service reporters, a former CIA official and American Muslim groups. (see "Ties to Spies?" -- http://www.cair-net.org/articles/article052098.htm) Referring to the Justice Department letter that Emerson's colleagues and attorney claim supports his subcommittee testimony, Sugg wrote: "As for the alleged death threat on Emerson, (the Justice Department spokesperson) refused to elaborate on the nature of the threat or to provide information that would allow an evaluation to be made about Emerson's claims. "Moreover, you have an incredible situation that the Justice Department's Terrorism and Violent Crimes Section did not know there was a band of assassins roaming U.S. streets attempting a hit on a prominent journalist. Nothing in (the Justice Department's) letter challenges the fact that Justice's Terrorism and Violent Crimes officials said they were unaware of any threat to Emerson. A retired, very high level Justice official who is a national authority on terrorism and espionage, when given the description made by Emerson, told me: 'At the point where these people had entered the United States, and reached the stage described, I would find it unusual, nearly impossible for Justice not to be informed....' "...apparently the alleged assassination threat information was not sufficient to merit referral to Justice. Nor did it result in any indictments or prosecutions. Nor did the media pick it up -- and it would, if true, be a helluva story." Sugg also noted that the IACSP press release quoted sources attesting to Emerson's credentials and characterizing American Muslim groups as allies of terrorists. Sugg wrote: "These sources are Steven Pomerantz and Oliver 'Buck' Revell. Not noted (in the press release) is that Pomerantz and Revell are officers of the same institute, and that both have a close association with Emerson. They are hardly independent sources. In fact, the three spend most of their time nowadays quoting each other about what excellent terrorism experts they all are. Revell is prominent in Emerson's 'Jihad in America.' "There's a fourth member of the association -- Yigal Carmon. A ranking member of Israel's intelligence and military establishment, he is considered to the right of even the current Likud government. As The Nation has reported (and never disputed by Emerson), Carmon was part of the 'gang of three' that spent much time lobbying Congress to derail the Middle East peace process -- and Carmon even stayed at Emerson's home on his visits to the United States. (The Nation, August 28/September 4, 1995 and May 15, 1995) Carmon is part of Revell's and Pomerantz's institute -- its 'Mideast Regional Director.' ...And Emerson even shuttles Carmon around to introduce him to journalists as an 'expert' on the Middle East. "Of course, these four people spend their time (and make money) out of portraying Arabs and Muslims as terrorists...I don't think it's too extreme to conclude that, considering the involvement of a top Israeli spook with Emerson and his friends, we have something much more sinister going on that 'journalism' and an institute studying terrorism." In a letter faxed to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Emerson's attorney called on the Islamic advocacy group to "not issue further statements" repeating what he called "false" and "defamatory" information in Sugg's earlier article. (CAIR has been the frequent target of Emerson's rhetorical attacks on American Muslim organizations.) This request resulted from CAIR's call for an investigation into the accuracy of Emerson's Senate testimony. (see CAIR's news release at: http://www.cair-net.org/presses/press052698.htm) The letters from the Justice Department to the Weekly Planet and the letter from Emerson's attorney to CAIR both failed to address the other challenges to Emerson's credibility by fellow journalists, terrorism experts and American Muslim groups. ------ To join CAIR-NET, CAIR's read-only mailing list: Send "subscribe cair-net" in the body of a message to majordomo(At)cair-net.org ------ Editors: Some computer systems do not recognize the "at" sign. It is an important component of e-mail addresses and should be used in place of the symbol (At) in the contact information above. -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 06/05 13:59 Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ----------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: 1of4-IMPORTANT EXCERPTS (fwd) Date: 08 Jun 1998 10:29:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [PART ONE OF FOUR] Dear Linda: Regarding: >Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 01:01:03 EDT >Subject: Re: [Fwd: (no subject)] > >I want to know more about the foreign terrorists who drove the explosives out >of Las Vegas. Is there any more info on that? I hadn't heard a word about >this. > >Thanks, April EXCERPTS FROM CONFERENCE LECTURE 1997 WORK IN PROGRESS I'd like to give you a small taste of the case that was presented to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (by way of the Defendant's Petition for Writ of Mandamus [available to download from www.telepath.com/believer], and this will provide for you a small indication of the defense that Jones was prepared to present on behalf of Mr. McVeigh, had he been allowed to do so. Consider first six of the introductory paragraphs of the Defendant's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and from there, we will examine some history. "The plan was arranged for a Middle Eastern bombing engineer to engineer the bomb in such a way that it could be carefully transported and successfully detonated. There is no reported incident of neo-Nazis or extreme right-wing militants in this country exploding any bomb of any significant size let alone one to bring down a nine (9) story federal building and kill 168 persons. In fact, not even members of the left-wing militant groups such as the Weatherman were ever able to accomplish anything of this magnitude. "This terrorist attack was 'contracted out' to persons whose organization and ideology was friendly to policies of the foreign power and included dislike and hatred of the United States government itself, and possibly included was a desire for revenge against the United States, with possible anti-black and anti-semitic overtones. Because Iraq had tried a similar approach in 1990, but had been thwarted by Syrian intelligence information given to the United States, this time the information was passed through an Iraqi intelligence base in the Philippines. "Operating out of the Philippines as a base, the state-sponsored terrorists, with the Murrah Building already chosen as the target, enlisted the support and assistance of members of the Radical American Right. The defense believes the evidence suggests that American neo-Nazis were chosen to carry out the bombing of the Murrah Building because of a shared ideological bent of hatred against the American government. It is possible that those who carried out the bombing were unaware of the true sponsor. "The evidence collected by the defense suggests that the desired ideology was found by the state-sponsored {Hamas-sponsored] terrorists in Elohim City, Oklahoma, a small compound near Muldrow, Oklahoma, consisting of between 25 and 30 families and described as a terrorist organization which preaches white supremacy, polygamy and overthrow of the government. Elohim City was a haven for former members of The Covenant, The Sword and the Arm of the Lord ('CSA'), another extremist organization that had been raided by the federal government on April 19, 1985, exactly ten years to the day prior to the Oklahoma City bombing. One member of CSA turned on the organization and testified in court at the trial of Richard Snell and others who were charged in Arkansas with sedition in that they conspired to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City with a rocket launcher in the early 1980's. Snell was convicted on unrelated capital charges and sentenced to death in Arkansas. He was executed the day of the Oklahoma City bombing--April 19, 1995--and is buried at Elohim City. It is from this group of people that the defense believes that the evidence suggests foreign, state-sponsored terrorists groomed the most radical persons associated with Elohim City and extracted monumental revenge against the federal government by destroying the Murrah Building on the day of Richard Snell's execution and the anniversary date of the federal raid. "But the defense hypothesis also entails evidence, very strong evidence, that the federal government, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, had an informant in Elohim City, an informant who warned federal law enforcement prior to April 19, 1995, that former residents, including the former chief of security, of Elohim City were planning to "target for destruction" federal buildings in Oklahoma, including the Alfred P. Murrah Building. The defense believes this scenario is true, that it is eerily similar to the World Trade Center bombing where the FBI had an informant infiltrate the terrorist group but failed to stop that criminal act, and that, absent judicial intervention, information concerning these matters in the possession of the federal government will be forever buried. "The defense for Mr. McVeigh is not engaged in a fishing expedition. As the information set forth in this Petition demonstrates, the McVeigh defense, using resources provided to it by the district court, has conducted a wide-ranging and increasingly narrow focused investigation. But without subpoena power, without the right to take depositions, and without access to national intelligence information, the McVeigh defense can go no further." [END OF INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS] And it did NOT go no any further than that. And there is a "further" that needs to be considered. in order for you to fully understand this course of events, I need to first introduce you to Mr. Cary Gagan who, during the weekend of June 21st, 1997, spent hours of what can only be described as hyperactive testimony with many of the independent investigators in the Oklahoma City area, and others who came from out of town to meet with this man. The most efficient way to introduce you to him is to just read a few paragraphs written by Bill Jasper who writes for the "New American" magazine. The "New American" is, as most of you know, the monthly publication of the John Birch Society, and in my thinking that is a somewhat compromised source. However, because I am personally absolutely certain of this information, because I have had the opportunity to work with Bill Jasper on some of these bombing issues and have come to know him rather well, and because the documentation for Gagan's story does exist, I have no qualms about quoting the "New American" in this particular instance. It saves time. "Cary Gagan, a man in his early 50s, is a federal informant who had received immunity from the U.S. Justice Department when he provided them with specific information regarding plans to blow up a federal building in April 1995 - months before the bombing actually took place. The government has since belittled Gagan's information and has attempted to portray him as unstable and unreliable. However, after meeting with Gagan and reviewing his information and documentation, The New American is persuaded that the major media have been altogether too hasty in accepting the government's decree on Gagan's reliability. "On September 14, 1994, United States Attorney for the District of Colorado Henry L. Solano and Assistant United States Attorney James R. Allison for the same district provided a letter of immunity for Gagan, who is from Denver. [This letter, by the way, appears on pages 390 and 391 of Oklahoma City: Day One.] "The letter, signed by Allison and Gagan, is an agreement regarding 'information concerning a conspiracy and/or attempt to destroy United States court facilities in Denver and possibly other cities.' Under the terms of the letter, Gagan was told, 'the United States agrees that no evidence derived from the information or statements provided by you will be used in any way against you.' "Gagan claimed to have been recruited by Arabs or Iranians operating through Mexico to deliver explosives for a series of planned bombings of federal buildings in Denver, Phoenix, and Oklahoma City. At various meetings in Las Vegas, Denver, and Kingman, Arizona, he met with 'Omar,' 'Ahmad,' and other representatives of the Hizbollah terrorist organization, as well as male Caucasian American citizens. "In a civil suit filed in the U.S. District Court in Denver against Solano, Allison, and others, for violation of the immunity agreement, Gagan writes: " 'On March 17, 1995, in this meeting at the Hilton Inn South in Greenwood Village, Colorado where Plaintiff was present with three members of this terrorist organization, displayed on the table were the construction plans of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building bearing the name J.W. Bateson Company of Dallas, Texas, with one of these terrorists allegedly traveling to Denver for this meeting from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.' "On March 27, 1995, and again on April 6, 1995, Gagan delivered urgent written warnings to federal authorities in Denver alerting them to an imminent bombing attack. He insists that he followed these up with repeated telephone calls, all of which were ignored. In his handwritten warning of April 1st to U.S. Marshall Tina Rowe Gagan said: " 'Dear Ms. Rowe: After leaving Denver for what I thought would be for a long time, I returned here last night because I have specific information that within two weeks a federal building(s) is to be bombed in the area or nearby. The previous requests I made for you to contact me, 27th & 28th of April (sic - March) '95, were ignored by you, Mr. Allison and my friends at the FBI. I would not ignore this specific request for you personally to contact me immediately regarding a plot to blow up a federal building. If the information is false, request Mr. Allison to charge me accordingly. If you and/or your office does not contact me as I so request herein I will never again contact any law enforcement agency, federal or state, regarding those matters set out in the letter of immunity. -- Cary Gagan.' "After interviewing Gagan and examining his documents in light of other known facts in this case, The New American finds that his claims have far more credibility than do those of the officials who have been attempting to debunk them over the past two years. "In a February 1, 1996 letter to Gagan, Solano and Allison wrote: 'Attempts by federal law enforcement officers to meaningfully corroborate information you have alleged to be true have been unsuccessful.... Therefore, the immunity granted by the letter of September 14, 1994 is hereby revoked.' Moreover, wrote the pair, 'You are warned that any statement you make which would incriminate you in illegal conduct, past, present or future can be used against you. You are no longer protected by the immunity granted by letter on September 14, 1994.' " [END OF MAGAZINE EXCERPTS] And that is the present state of Mr. Gagan at this time. He is unprotected; he is guilty -- as you will soon see -- of actively participating in the preparations for both the internal and external explosions that destroyed the Murrah Building; he is without cover; he is surveilled and stalked by both his so-called friends and his enemies because of what he knows, and what he did, and who he is telling. The fact that he did what he did with the blessing of United States federal government agencies -- and on their behalf -- doesn't seem to matter to them anymore. Mr. Gagan is a man who has absolutely nothing to lose. We of course have a similar situation with BATF Informant Carol Howe who, when it became known that she was going to be called as a witness for the defense, was hurriedly indicted on charges of conspiracy to make explosives or some similar rap, and the rumors began flying about alleged drug abuse, unreliability, and flakiness in general. This is a pattern I assume is familiar to all of you by now. [NOTE: THE MAJORITY OF CAROL HOWE/ELOHIM CITY INFORMATION HAS BEEN DELETED FROM THESE EXCERPTS BECAUSE THE FOCUS HERE IS THE MATTER OF STATE-SPONSORED (HAMAS) TERRORIST ACTS IN THE U.S. AND THE PARTICIPATION OF FOREIGN TERRORISTS IN THE MURRAH BUILDING BOMBING. A FEW OF THE ENTRIES REMAIN IN THE EXCERPTS DEMONSTRATIVE OF THE LINKS BETWEEN THE FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND E.C. BUT THE DETAILS OF HOWE/E.C. MUST REMAIN THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER SET OF POSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY HERE.] Let's look at this event, how it developed, who was playing, what the witnesses said, and so forth. We will start the chronological study of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1980. 1980-81 - The man who was to become a long-standing and highly-paid government informant for the FBI, the DEA, and the U.S. Marshals Service, as well as a major player in the Oklahoma City bombing, Cary Gagan, was recruited by the Russian Embassy in Mexico City to do some minor forging of identification documents for some of its people that they needed to get into the United States. After this initial contact with the Soviets, Gagan was recruited, along with his work partner at Martin Marietta (Dan Howard), to smuggle technological secrets out of the company to give to the Russians. Gagan reported all of these activities to the FBI who encouraged him to continue working with the Russians as an undercover agent for the FBI. 1983 through 1986 - Gagan made Iranian and Iraqi contacts through the Russians. These Arabian men were presenting themselves at that time as Colombians, and spoke Arabic, English, and Spanish fluently. His assignments at this time involved drug running and money laundering, primarily out of Las Vegas. Gagan reported these activities to both the FBI and the DEA. DEA Agent Richard Gregory became his contact within that agency and they had continued contact through and after the Oklahoma City bombing. 1986-1990 - Informant Cary Gagan was convicted on a 5-count felony charge and put in jail. At the trial, because Gagan knew it was a concocted charge designed to achieve some other purpose, he chose to represent himself pro se. The judge in the matter decided that Gagan must be insane to want to represent himself, and ordered that Gagan submit to a mental evaluation before the trial could proceed. Gagan agreed and was evaluated by psychiatrists for several weeks while being housed in a mental institution. The results of the evaluation were that he was as sane as any attorney they knew, and he was allowed to continue representing himself at trial. But what this procedure did was create for Gagan a record of psychiatric so-called "treatment." The trial proceeded with Gagan representing himself -- since he had been determined to be completely sane -- and he lost his case and went to prison on a felony conviction. During his jail sentence, he was interviewed several times by the FBI on another espionage matter, so they were regularly in contact with him during his incarceration. Also, a four-year sentence on a 5-count felony conviction is really pretty light. Gagan was biding his time and staying in contact with federal officials. However, the record of the psychiatric evaluation would later be used against him publicly to indicate that he was unreliable. This same sort of ploy was used against Carol Howe to discredit her. For both of these individuals, the accusations against them were fabricated to cover the federal government's involvement in all of their activities -- and this at the expense of their own operatives. Summer 1988 - Andreas Strassmeir came to the United States, presumably to be a participant in the 125th-anniversary re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg. A review of his background shows that Andreas Strassmeir is a German national whose father is a well-regarded and successful politician in the Christian Democrat Coalition, who recently retired as Secretary of State for West Germany, BUT whose grandfather was a founding member of the German Nazi party. Andreas Strassmeir was a former Lieutenant in Germany's elite Panzer Grenadiers, similar to our Special Forces, and was trained in military intelligence. Strassmeir later said that he moved to the United States in 1988 "because he was planning to work on a special assignment for the U.S. Justice Department." According to Strassmeir, "It never worked out." A retired USAF Colonel, Vince Petruskie, was helping Strassmeir at the DEA and Treasury Department, but he said ultimately nothing came through. However, this association of Strassmeir with Petruskie has always been a troublesome matter because Petruskie is surrounded by rumors of his involvement with the CIA in the 1950s, matters which have not been confirmed but seem likely. On the day of the Murrah Building bombing, Strassmeir was in this country illegally on an expired visa. Subsequently, when Strassmeir became the subject of intense media and defense scrutiny, his attorney, Kirk Lyons, a well-known North Carolina lawyer (and member of the C.A.U.S.E. Foundation), openly boasted that he had "spirited" Strassmeir out of the country through Texas, Mexico, and France at an expense of $12,000, telling his supporters that it would be "easier to defend Strassmeir from Germany than from inside a federal detention facility." Strassmeir, originally presented to the press as a starry-eyed German interested in American military history, was later identified as the Chief of Security at Elohim City, but always denied this allegation. The C.A.U.S.E. Foundation is at this time actively denying that Strassmeir played any big role in Elohim City security, stating that Pastor Robert Millar's son-in-law Zara Patterson, a former Marine Viet Nam vet, was always in charge of Elohim City's security. However, persons who lived at Elohim City at the time of Strassmeir's tenure have confirmed to a man that security was Strassmeir's job while he was there. Strassmeir was also an active participant in a Klan rally in Texas. He illegally overstayed his visa in this country and traveled on false identity papers. He was arrested in Oklahoma by State Highway Patrolman Vernon Phillips while using the identity of Peter Ward -- who, by the way, is a real person and friend of Strassmier. Strassmeir is also a suspect in multiple investigations concerning weapons violations, including making weapons fully automatic. Strassmeir was interviewed and extensively written about by "London Telegraph" journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a man whose own agenda and connections are suspect. Nevertheless, counsel for Defendant McVeigh personally interviewed Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington, D.C., and confirmed the statements that Pritchard had made relating to Strassmeir. Pritchard represented to defense counsel that Strassmeir strongly suggested to him that there was an informant at Elohim City. Pritchard believed that Strassmeir was that informant, but he came to that conclusion and made his assumptions in print prior to the public release of the information concerning BATF informant Carol Howe. Strassmeir naturally would not expressly admit to being an informant for anyone, and the United States government has also denied that Andreas Strassmeir was employed by it. The testimony of BATF informant Carol Howe blatantly contradicts this denial. According to Carol Howe's statements, Strassmeir was the senior intelligence asset in place at Elohim City, but Howe was never able to specifically state that he was a BATF informant, as she was. That Strassmeir was an intelligence asset on the scene for somebody seems very plausible, but given his associations with Dennis Mahon (whom we will discuss in detail in a few moments), the governments of Iran and Iraq, and his family background, as well as his present-day affinity for Nazism, it seems possible and even probable that his connections were more at the Central Intelligence Agency level. While we cannot confirm an association with the CIA, we can confirm that the terrorist cell operating out of Las Vegas with which Informant Cary Gagan was working knew an "Andy" and a "Dennis" and considered them sympathetic and capable assistants in their terrorist efforts. Despite government denials that Andreas Strassmeir has never been the subject of an investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing case, defense counsel obtained documents -- generated by the government -- which indicate that he most assuredly was. One official document, dated January 11, 1996, discussed Strassmeir and stated, "Subject is wanted for questioning by FBI, Oklahoma City. Detain and notify [the FBI]." The document then gave the phone number, the FBI case number, the Oklahoma City bombing case number, and then concluded that "subject is possibly armed and may be dangerous." In addition, defense counsel learned of significant official communications between the United States government and its representatives in Germany concerning Strassmeir and that Strassmeir was of great interest to the Counterterrorism Division of the Diplomatic Protective Service of the Department of State. This document specifically bears the Oklahoma City bombing investigation case number and