Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

January  2003


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Letter from a broken heart
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 19:36:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/06/02/arbh060202-1.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Accentuate the Positive
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:43:21 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Well in answer to your encryption question:

If you really are going to be that paranoid, it is possible using commonly
available encryption utilities to encrypt a message so only the
confirmed/authorized persons on a given newsgroups list will be able to read
it.
Of course if someone who has been authorized is actually a mole, then it
wouldn't make any difference.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: Accentuate the Positive

> Robert Goodman, responding to me, wrote:
> > > So, you encrypt the messages...what prevents Joe Bureaucrat from
> >simply
> > > subscribing to the list?
> >
> >I think we would WANT Joe to subscribe!
>
> Absotively and Posolutely! But I was originally responding to what I
> thought was Frank's idea of trying to make it so that Joe couldn't use the
> list "against" members. I was merely pointing out that for any "measures"
> Frank might take to "protect" members, the bureacratic "countermeasures"
> are ridiculously easy (especially if TIA or some similar thing gets
> implemented).
>
> I suppose that Frank might be able to get it hosted somewhere that would
> protect "lurkers", but it probably wouldn't protect posters. So, the end
> result is that if someone is paranoid enough to think they need
> "protection", then they need to avail themselves of some kind of a
remailer
> service that encrypts traffic between the remailer and the individual.
>
> But then Frank said that it wasn't the list he was worried about so much
as
> the web site. (I suppose putting the list "offshore" might protect
against
> the police shutting it down before any notice can go out to list
> members--provided that the police in the "offshore" country are less
likely
> to do so than the US police.)
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:56:47 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:55:15 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:55:21 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:55:04 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:55:17 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:55:25 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automated. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: membership statistics - 31 December 2002 (with one-year comparison)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 07:42:37 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

National Libertarian Party Membership Statistics

Statistics as of 31 December 2002

Total dues-paying members in areas with affiliate parties: 22871
Overall density: 80.3 members per million population

Change since Growth %Growth Growth/pop
four years ago (31Dec1998) -7136 -23.8 -25.1
record high (30Nov1999) -10624 -31.7 -37.3
last pres. election (31Oct2000) -9900 -30.2 -34.8
beginning of year (31Dec2001) -4860 -17.5 -17.1
convention (30Jun2002) -2168 -8.7 -7.6

Highest Ranking States (growth since 31 December 2001 (one year))

Number Density #Growth %Growth Growth/pop
CA 3981 NH 193.8 IN 32 ID 19.3 ID 17.4
TX 1249 AK 181.1 ID 23 IN 5.7 IN 5.2
GA 1219 VT 153.3 AL 4 AL 1.3 AL 0.9
FL 1193 CO 149.6 DE -5 HI -5.6 LA -3.1
MI 1025 GA 145.4 HI -6 DE -6.8 AR -4.5
PA 902 WA 132.6 RI -6 LA -8.1 HI -4.9
IL 835 DC 124.2 DC -7 AR -9.0 RI -5.7
WA 794 NV 123.5 ND -9 DC -9.0 DE -6.3
OH 791 WY 117.3 SD -9 VT -9.6 MS -6.6
NY 780 CA 115.4 VT-10 RI-10.2 KY -8.1
VA 718 NM 108.2 WY-10 NC-12.5 WV -8.3
MA 665 ID 107.5 AR-12 MI-13.0 WI -8.5
CO 661 OR 104.5 LA-14 WI-13.0 TX -9.2
IN 589 MA 104.2 WV-15 IL-13.4 NC -9.3
NC 534 MI 102.6 MS-19 TX-13.6 NY -9.8
NJ 523 VA 99.9 NE-19 CO-13.8 IL-10.3
AZ 418 MT 99.5 AK-22 WY-14.7 OK-10.7
MD 400 ME 96.4 MT-22 MN-15.2 NE-11.1
OR 363 IN 96.3 KY-33 NH-15.3 MN-11.5
MO 362 DE 85.4 ME-33 TN-15.8 TN-11.7
TN 357 HI 82.5 OK-37 AK-16.1 SD-11.9
AL 319 CT 79.1 NH-44 WV-16.3 DC-12.2
MN 319 AZ 78.8 WI-46 AZ-16.9 MO-13.5
WI 308 MD 74.4 UT-47 MD-17.2 ND-14.2
CT 271 PA 73.4 NM-49 FL-17.4 SC-14.3
NV 260 KS 73.1 MN-57 MO-17.4 OH-15.2
SC 255 FL 72.8 KS-58 NE-17.8 MI-15.3
NH 244 AL 71.5 SC-58 CT-17.9 FL-15.4
NM 198 OH 69.5 CT-59 OH-17.9 MD-15.4
KS 197 UT 69.2 TN-67 KY-18.5 AZ-16.0
IA 181 IL 66.9 MO-76 SC-18.5 VT-16.3
LA 158 NC 65.2 NC-76 WA-18.6 NJ-17.0
UT 157 MO 64.3 MD-83 VA-19.2 CT-17.2
OK 153 MN 64.2 AZ-85 NY-19.3 WY-20.2
KY 145 SC 62.8 IA-86 OK-19.5 UT-20.7
ID 142 TN 62.2 NV-92 MT-19.6 KS-21.5
ME 124 IA 61.9 OR-93 SD-19.6 PA-21.9
AR 121 NJ 61.6 CO-106 MS-19.8 VA-23.8
AK 115 TX 58.6 IL-129 NM-19.8 CO-24.0
HI 101 WI 57.0 NJ-144 CA-20.2 MT-24.3
VT 94 NE 51.4 MI-153 OR-20.4 ME-25.6
MT 90 RI 50.1 VA-171 ME-21.0 NM-26.8
NE 88 ND 48.9 OH-173 NJ-21.6 OR-26.8
MS 77 SD 48.9 WA-182 ND-22.5 CA-29.2
WV 77 AR 44.9 NY-186 GA-22.6 IA-29.4
DC 71 OK 44.2 TX-196 KS-22.7 WA-30.4
DE 68 WV 42.7 MA-230 PA-23.0 AK-34.7
WY 58 NY 41.0 FL-252 UT-23.0 NH-34.9
RI 53 KY 35.7 PA-269 MA-25.7 MA-36.1
SD 37 LA 35.4 GA-355 NV-26.1 GA-42.3
ND 31 MS 26.9 CA-1009 IA-32.2 NV-43.7

areas with currently recognized affiliates: 22871
other US areas (territories, etc.) 12
APO/FPO 29
non-US 11
------
22923

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP ADVISORY: LP's medical marijuana ad wins award
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 08:37:16 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
ADVISORY FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: January 3, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarian Party advertisement named
the "Most Dramatic" political ad of 2002

WASHINGTON, DC -- An advertisement created by the Libertarian Party
has
been named the "Most Dramatic" political ad of 2002 by the National
Journal.

The 30-second spot, entitled "Why Bob," was broadcast by Libertarian
Carole Ann Rand against Republican Bob Barr in the race for U.S. House
(District 7) in Georgia.

The advertisement was written, directed, and filmed by LP Political
Director Ron Crickenberger, who said it felt "great" to be recognized
by the influential magazine for his work.

"It really shows the power of the [medical marijuana] issue," he said.
"I felt that once I had seen the ad, we really had something that was
powerful. Although our advertising budget was not great, it was the
kind of ad that people remember."

National Journal cited the "Why Bob" ad in a December 20 story on its
website, NationalJournal.com. The ad was selected from among the 1,868
political ads -- which touted or attacked more than 500 U.S. Senate,
U.S. House, and gubernatorial campaigns -- that aired in 2002.

The magazine also highlighted some of the most controversial and
influential political ads of the year, along with the "Most
Desperate,"
the "Oddest," and the "Most Exhibitionist."

The "Why Bob" ad featured medical marijuana patient Cheryl Miller, who
suffers from multiple sclerosis. In the ad, a wan Miller addresses the
camera from a hospital bed and says, "Bob Barr thinks I should be in
jail for using my medicine. Why would you do that to me, Bob?"

A voiceover then states: "When the drug war turns on our own sick and
dying, it's gone too far -- and so has Bob Barr."

Crickenberger speculated that the advertisement was so effective
because it told the truth.

"This was the most blatantly honest ad [of the year]," he said. "It's
telling the truth instead of political pabulum."

The Libertarian Party broadcast the ad about 4,000 times on CNN, TNT,
Comedy Central, MSNBC, and other cable networks in the Georgia
district.

The ad ran during the Republican primary, which saw Barr square off
against U.S. Rep. John Linder in a restructured district. Linder won
with 67% of the vote on August 20.

The LP took aim at Barr as part of its "Incumbent Killer" strategy,
which targeted the worst drug warriors in Congress for defeat.

After the election, CNN reported that Merle Black, a political science
professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said the "Why Bob" ad played
a role in the outcome of the election.

A CNN story on August 22 said, "[Black] said Linder likely benefited
strongly from Libertarian voters, whose party ran a stinging TV ad ...
criticizing Barr for opposing the use of medical marijuana."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Gangs of NY
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 00:07:58 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I saw the movie a few days ago and discussed it a bit with other
libertarians who'd seen & enjoyed it. (The character Bill played by Dan
Lewis was alone worth the price of admission.) But what we discussed
only a little its apparent philosophy, or sell, or message, which seems
to have been stated in the ads and at the conclusion of the film. Any
of you?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - January 27, 2003 Issue
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:15:06 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

The following articles from the January 27, 2003 issue of The New
American
are now available online.

----------------------------------------
The January 27, 2003 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/01-27-2003/
----------------------------------------

Watching Your Every Move
New invasive technologies present an unprecedented potential for
tyranny.

Bill of Rights' Implausible Defenders
Don’t look to the ACLU to defend your liberty and the Constitution
against
the encroaching police state.

----------------------------------------

Be sure to introduce friends and family who may be interested in these
issues to The New American by forwarding this e-mail or using the
e-mail
forwarding link on these articles.

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
e-mail address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Bad news for Karaoke fans
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 01:01:16 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I thought you might be interested in this if you've read of the campaign
to arrest & prosecute people in bars in Va. for public drunkenness --
with drunkenness assessed by the same .08 mg/dL standard for blood
alcohol as for driving, and using the statutory definition of bars as
public places. The PR being given out is that it's to cut down drunk
driving, even though no apparent effort is made to target drivers among
the drunks.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara" <accidentalyuppie@aol.compuserve>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Bad news for Karaoke fans

> >I dunno, this doesn't sound like a terrible harbinger of doom and the
> >end of the American way of life as we know it, at least to me. It
sounds
> >more like some dumbass overzealous cop probably took a fairly
resonable
> >directive and applied it in an extreme manner. If Santa had been
taking
> >a dump on the bar singing "My Way" and had car keys in his pocket,
this
> >might not have been an unreasonable thing to do. Almost anything
done
> >to extreme can be problematic. Heck, you can supposedly die from
> >drinking too much water.
> >
> >People do stupid things all the time. Sometimes they are the good
guys,
> >sometimes they are the bad guys, and some times the stuff is so
stupid
> >it's hard to tell which they are. I still don't think it means that
our
> >society is going down the drain just because a cop got too big for
his
> >britches.
>
> I disagree, I think this kind of stuff is very scary.
>
> The fight against drunk driving has been extremely successful.
Organizations
> like MADD and the alcohol companies have been reasonably successful in
their
> efforts to educate the public in responsible drinking. As a result,
drunk
> driving fatalities are down 37% over the past 20 years, despite a 27%
increase
> in the number of licensed drivers, a 46% increase in the number of
registered
> vehicles, and a 74% increase in the number of miles we drive each
year. These
> stats are based on US drivers and the source is the US Department of
> Transportation. These and more are available online at
www.alcoholstats.com.
>
> One of the reasons that these campaigns have been so successful is
that it was
> neither a "war against drinking" or a "war against driving". The focus
was
> "just don't mix 'em" and we learned some very effective techniques for
doing
> so. Even when I was younger and wilder, my friends and I always used
designated
> drivers. Hosts at private parties learned to make sure that no one
leaving
> their event attempted to operate a motor vehicle unless they were
reasonably
> sober. Bartenders became equally responsible. It wasn't perfect, but
it worked.
>
> To me, this latest development feels like they're coming out and
saying"just
> kidding about this responsible drinking stuff, what we really want is
> temperance and an end to your alcohol based fun." I fear that this may
alienate
> drinkers to the point where they don't cooperate at all anymore. I
mean, why go
> to the trouble of designating a driver if the police can arrest you
for drunk
> driving anyway, without even ascertaining if you intended to drive?
Why go to
> the hassle and inconvenience of collecting the car keys of your party
guests if
> the cops are going to come in and arrest everyone at the party before
they even
> attempt to get their keys back? And this may cause people drinking in
bars and
> at parties to make an effort to appear sober, just to thwart an
unjustified
> arrest, and therefore make it more difficult for the bartender and
friends of
> the patron to determine if he's capable of driving.
>
> I see this as a dangerous precedent to set and as negative progress in
the
> fight against drunk driving. What's next----stopping and arresting
drivers
> soley on the grounds that they MIGHT be going somewhere to drink?
>
> I would also like to add that even though I haven't consumed alcohol
in well
> over 10 years, I am certain I would be perfectly capable of doing a
karaoke
> number in bar while dressed in a Santa suit and I would probably enjoy
it,
> too---even though I was stone cold sober. I haven't actually done
that, but I
> did perform a rather silly duo with Chuck E Cheese at a kid's party
not too
> long ago.
>
>
>
> Barbara -
>
> "I've got something inside me
> Not what my life's about
> Cause I've been letting my outside tide me
> Over 'til my time runs out."
>
> Taxi
> Harry Chapin
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: Another Berlin Wall
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:44:17 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Meehan" <tim@ocsarc.org>
To: <cmap@mapinc.org>; <mapster@coollist.com>; <drctalk@drcnet.org>;
<maptalk@mapinc.org>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: Another Berlin Wall

> http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2806.html
>
> Another Berlin Wall
> by Pete Brady (16 Jan, 2003)
>
> Canadian-US border problems increase
>
> I've been contacted by an increasing number of people who asked me to
> investigate conditions at the US-Canadian border.
>
> Many of my correspondents told me they had been turned away and/or
harassed at
> land and air ports of entry going in either direction. These actions
have ruined
> vacations, business trips, family reunions, weddings, and other
important
> activities, and have cost people much money and heartache.
>
> Canadians heading south into the US, especially young women, are
increasingly
> being detained, interrogated, strip-searched and otherwise humiliated
by US
> officials. Vehicles are being dismantled by US agents as they search
for drugs,
> weapons and other contraband; in one case reported to us, a vehicle's
braking
> system was damaged by the US search, which resulted in a serious
traffic
> accident.
>
> It used to be that people heading north into Canada could count on
friendly,
> welcoming, efficient treatment by Canadian authorities. All that has
changed
> since 9-11, in part because the US government says that Canada is a
haven for
> terrorists due to its allegedly lax immigration policies.
>
> The US has also long criticized Canada for its refusal to wage an
all-out war
> against marijuana. For several years, US drug agents have alleged that
billions
> of dollars worth of Canadian cannabis, primarily grown in British
Columbia, was
> flooding into America. Now that the Canadian judicial system and some
elected
> officials are openly suggesting that Canada liberalize its marijuana
laws, US
> officials are routinely attempting to interfere in Canada's internal
affairs by
> telling the Canadian government not to loosen its pot laws.
>
> US actions have poisoned the relationship it has with its northern
neighbor.
> Canada has responded by instituting strict, 100% enforcement of
already-existing
> Canadian immigration restrictions that disallow anyone with any type
of criminal
> record, even if just a misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction,
from
> entering Canada.
>
> Due to the politically-charged nature of the situation, Canadian
officials
> contacted by CC refused to talk on the record or even to comment on
some of the
> more troublesome aspects of the border situation.
>
> Canadian officials did confirm that travel to Canada is not as easy as
it used
> to be, and that zero tolerance immigration enforcement will become the
rule
> rather than the exception at all Canadian ports of entry.
>
> "The rules that say a person cannot enter Canada with any type of
misdemeanor or
> felony have been in place a long time, but they were not enforced
uniformly,"
> explained a spokeswoman at the Canadian embassy in Washington, DC.
"But after
> 9-11, Canada was accused of inadvertently assisting terrorists because
of its
> immigration policies, and our citizens found themselves subjected to a
great
> deal of scrutiny as they attempted to cross the border into the US. It
is
> unfortunate to describe it this way, but it appears that our
policymakers
> decided that we would treat American citizens as badly as our citizens
were
> being treated. Now, if you have a criminal record of any kind, it is
likely you
> will be caught due to an extensive computerized information- sharing
agreement
> between the two governments, and you will be refused entry."
>
> But it is not just Canadian border agents who are now running records
checks and
> turning away US citizens trying to enter Canada. In many cases, US
officials are
> harassing US citizens trying to re-enter their own home country,
conducting
> warrantless searches of people, their possessions, and their vehicles
with no
> respect for due process or common civility.
>
> Getting into and out of America is becoming increasingly difficult,
prompting
> one correspondent to liken the situation to that which was experienced
by Jews
> in Germany during Hitler's early reign, and to the situation that
hampered
> travel by residents of East and West Germany before the collapse of
the Berlin
> Wall.
>
> The implications of the new North American Berlin Wall should be
obvious to
> anybody involved with cannabis, but let me spell it out explicitly for
those who
> haven't yet gotten the point: the days of easy travel to and from
Canada are
> over, and the days of being able to easily get across the border with
contraband
> are also over.
>
> Of course, a few people with criminal records (or cannabis, or both)
are still
> probably getting across the borders at border checkpoints, due to the
realities
> of border traffic and lack of 100% zero tolerance enforcement at some
ports of
> entry.
>
> On the other hand, until the citizens of Canada and the US create
governments
> that do not put walls between people based on whether they have been
convicted
> of marijuana crimes, the artificial, arbitrary and counterproductive
barrier
> that now exists at the border between the US and Canada will continue
to harm
> people, nations, and human dignity.
>
> "During the Vietnam War, when thousands of Americans fled the USA to
find
> freedom and safety in Canada, our government passed a law forbidding
Canadian
> border agents from asking Americans about their draft status,"
explains Dana
> Larsen, star of Pot-TV and editor and co-publisher of Cannabis Culture
and
> Cannabis Kultur magazines. "I think that our political party and
lobbyists will
> now push for a law that forbids our border agents from excluding
Americans who
> have marijuana convictions on their records. It makes sense to have
immigration
> policies that keep dangerous people out of Canada, eh, but we should
welcome
> American pot refugees, and I intend to do all I can to convince the
government
> to remove marijuana convictions from the list of 'crimes' that will
keep a
> person out of Canada."
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Foreign Policy...
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:13:08 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings everyone!

In all fairness to those who believe that the current Shrub Regime's<tm> US
foreign policy, come hell or high water is in our nation's best interest,
there are some interesting developments arising as we speak.

The international news media is now shifting a lot of attention to those
nations who don't agree. Germany and France are the two key players in
Western Europe who have distanced themselves from the sabre rattling of the
Bush regime, and in Eastern Europe, Russia still holds out in favour of
diplomacy in resolving the Iraq crisis.

There are some facts now emerging that show this to be something that we
have not formerly been told -- maybe it's about OIL!

France, it turns out, has billions of dollars invested in Iraq, from
automobiles to petroleum. Russia is owed some $8 billion dollars on oil
exploitation which would likely be in jeopardy should such commitments be
nullified by a sudden change in the current Iraqi government, then
controlled (on behalf of the Iraqi people) by the US and Great Britain! Ya
have to wonder where this may be going, REALLY! How Australia signed on to
this is anyone's guess right now. There are plenty of dictators to go
around, after all, North Korea is in the process of renouncing its prior
commitments to nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and the US government
claims this is NOT an issue worth going to war over!

Meanwhile, the US stock market is in big time melt-down mode as we speak.
The nation's major airlines are all facing possible bankruptcy (and I hold a
lot of airline stock, proportionately to my portfolio). But it isn't airline
stocks alone that are being held in the balance here, it is the entire US
economy. analysts now are suggesting that the US war rhetoric is the single
deciding factor prohibiting a rapid expansion in the US economy! I'm
getting that from several sources, all of which have major connections with
Wall Street analysts.

Current US foreign policy is, and has been, a total disaster. It is
destroying alliances, creating enemies at will in which would not normally
threaten any US interests, destroying our economy along with the rest of the
planet, and creating anarchy in terms of dealing with different cultural
issues all in the name of the big bully on the block getting its own way no
matter what! This insanity has to come to a halt.

Maybe it's time for a regime change in the United States of America.

Kindest regards,
Frank
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:01:00 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!
>Greetings everyone!
>
>In all fairness to those who believe that the current Shrub Regime's<tm> US
>foreign policy, come hell or high water is in our nation's best interest,
>there are some interesting developments arising as we speak.

Thanks for the concession that Bush just might actually have our nation's
best interest at heart. (That was what you intended, right? That he
*might* have the nation's best interest at heart--even if you still think
that he *probably* or *likely* has some other agenda?)

>There are some facts now emerging that show this to be something that we
>have not formerly been told -- maybe it's about OIL!
>
>France, it turns out, has billions of dollars invested in Iraq, from
>automobiles to petroleum. Russia is owed some $8 billion dollars on oil
>exploitation which would likely be in jeopardy should such commitments be
>nullified by a sudden change in the current Iraqi government, then
>controlled (on behalf of the Iraqi people) by the US and Great Britain! Ya
>have to wonder where this may be going, REALLY!

So, for France and Russia, it's all about OIL. But that doesn't
necessarily mean it's about OIL for the US and UK--except, of course, in
dealing with these potential UN Security Council vetoes for whom it is all
about oil.

>How Australia signed on to
>this is anyone's guess right now.

Hmm. Perhaps because just across the straits from Australia is one of the
largest Muslim nations--where a bunch of Australians recently died in a
terrorist attack and so perhaps Australia sees it as being in it's best
interest to get real democracy going in as many Islamic countries as
possible and get rid of dictators sponsoring terrorism? Naaaww...couldn't
be! There must be some sort of a
New-world-order-federal-reserve-bilderberger-blood-for-oil-black-helicopter
conspiracy out there that's making them do it. :-)

> There are plenty of dictators to go
>around, after all, North Korea is in the process of renouncing its prior
>commitments to nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and the US government
>claims this is NOT an issue worth going to war over!

Let's see. Iraq and NK and Iran and all the other countries are the
children of the US. Therefore, the US needs to make sure that everyone
gets the same size piece of cake and the same size dish of ice cream.
Right?

No. The present governments of Iraq, Iran, NK (and, in fact, China and a
few others) are enemies of the US. We didn't ask for it to be that way, we
don't want it to be that way, and in many cases, we've probably done more
to help many of these places than to hurt them. But regardless of whether
we deserve to have them as enemies or not, the fact remains that they ARE
our enemies. That means that we need to use all our guile, cunning,
diplomacy, pressure, and yes, occasionally force, to make it so that they
will hurt us the least. "Fairness" doesn't cut it. And yes, NK really IS
different than Iraq. NK doesn't need nukes to lay waste to Seoul and about
everything in SK that's within about 50 miles of the DMZ. All the nukes do
is put the rest of SK and Japan into the equation.

Actually, someone made a pretty fair case that the best way to deal with NK
might be for the US to start talking about removing US troops from SK. His
point was that if we did so, it wouldn't be long before Japan and SK
sobered up and figured out that they had better get nukes (and they'd have
them not long after that). The Chinese wouldn't take very long to figure
out the logical sequence of events and decide that would not be in their
best interest--and, of course, during the transition period, we'd be
telling China that their invasion of SK or Japan would simply be out of the
question. That would essentially leave China with one option--force NK to
ditch their nukes. Of course, all four of those players, China, Japan, NK
and SK are essentially free-riding on the US right now--politically,
economically, and militarily in one way or another. SK doesn't want
reunification because, unlike Germany where (IIRC) the economic difference
between the two was less than 50%, the per-person GDP in SK is 16 *times*
the per-person GDP in NK. Meanwhile, with us in SK, SK doesn't need to
spend to match NK's army. Japan depends on us to keep the peace and nuke
NK if NK nukes Japan. But they're starting to push for their own SDI
program and if we bail, they'll probably start their own nuke program as
well (and amend their constitution if they need to.)

>Meanwhile, the US stock market is in big time melt-down mode as we speak.
>The nation's major airlines are all facing possible bankruptcy (and I hold
a
>lot of airline stock, proportionately to my portfolio). But it isn't
airline
>stocks alone that are being held in the balance here, it is the entire US
>economy. analysts now are suggesting that the US war rhetoric is the single
>deciding factor prohibiting a rapid expansion in the US economy! I'm
>getting that from several sources, all of which have major connections with
>Wall Street analysts.

Yup. Before a war, stocks go down. Once the outcome of the war is known
for sure (the war doesn't even have to be over), they go back up (been that
way in just about every war this century). Probably the worst thing for
the stock market would be to heed the advice of the anti-war/appeasement
crowd and "wait for the inspections to finish". The uncertainty would
continue until the end of the year with the depressive effect on
stocks. I'd say about 50-50 that stocks will take off the moment there is
a definitive "go" on the war. And if they don't take off then, they'll
likely take off after there's been a few days of fighting and no major
terrorist incidents in the US and no major casualties in the fighting. And
if they still haven't taken off, they'll almost certainly make progress
once it's obvious that the war is into the end-game. So, unless you
*really* think that there are going to be major casualties or major
terrorist incidents in response, you're probably looking at the last big
buying opportunity before the start of the next major bull market.

>Current US foreign policy is, and has been, a total disaster. It is
>destroying alliances, creating enemies at will in which would not normally
>threaten any US interests, destroying our economy along with the rest of
the
>planet, and creating anarchy in terms of dealing with different cultural
>issues all in the name of the big bully on the block getting its own way no
>matter what! This insanity has to come to a halt.

Now, we're back to opinion. I suppose you think that Bush should simply do
the bidding of the OIL-greedy French and Russians (in order to not "destroy
alliances"). Or maybe what he should do is yank the troops out of the
Persian Gulf region and plant them SK. That ought to give you enough time
to figure out all the arguments for why there shouldn't be a war in Korea
and why we should simply pay NK off again for more broken promises. Heck,
if he did that, you might even start coming up with reasons to go back
after Iraq.

>Maybe it's time for a regime change in the United States of America.

Seems to me, we just had one. Part of it took place back in 1994, and the
more obvious part in 2000. There were some "reactionary forces" that
masked part of the regime change, but it continued in 2002. Given trends,
we might look back in a couple of years and say that "in 2003, we were in
the middle of a regime change in the United States of America." (It might
not be a "regime change" that you happen to like, but it would be a "regime
change" all the same.) That's one of the nice things about living in a
country with a democratically-elected representative government, regime
changes occur peacefully and they generally occur within a few years of
when a majority of the people *want* them to occur. And while it
occasionally feels as if these changes take too long, the fact is that
compared to any alternative (like Iraq, or NK or China), they occur at
lightning speed. The thing that fools people is that when the changes in
some of these other places actually take place, they are over quickly--but
people ignore the 20-30 years of festering discontent that preceded the
event they focus on.

>Kindest regards,
>Frank

Likewise,
Lowell

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: 24 Jan 2003 19:21:26 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 19:01, Lowell C. Savage wrote:
...
> >Maybe it's time for a regime change in the United States of America.
>
> Seems to me, we just had one. Part of it took place back in 1994, and the
> more obvious part in 2000. There were some "reactionary forces" that
> masked part of the regime change, but it continued in 2002. Given trends,
> we might look back in a couple of years and say that "in 2003, we were in
> the middle of a regime change in the United States of America." (It might
> not be a "regime change" that you happen to like, but it would be a
"regime
> change" all the same.) That's one of the nice things about living in a
> country with a democratically-elected representative government, regime
> changes occur peacefully and they generally occur within a few years of
> when a majority of the people *want* them to occur. And while it
> occasionally feels as if these changes take too long, the fact is that
> compared to any alternative (like Iraq, or NK or China), they occur at
> lightning speed. The thing that fools people is that when the changes in
> some of these other places actually take place, they are over quickly--but
> people ignore the 20-30 years of festering discontent that preceded the
> event they focus on.
.

Damn, Lowell, that was very well done! Thank you!

Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:23:15 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 19:21 01/24/03 -0700, Bill Anderson wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 19:01, Lowell C. Savage wrote:
>...
> > >Maybe it's time for a regime change in the United States of America.
> >
> > Seems to me, we just had one. Part of it took place back in 1994, and
the
> > more obvious part in 2000....
>Damn, Lowell, that was very well done! Thank you!
>
>Bill

You're very welcome. And since the compliment is coming from you, I
*REALLY* appreciate it.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:15:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote Frank Reichert...

> Thanks for the concession that Bush just might actually have our nation's
> best interest at heart. (That was what you intended, right? That he
> *might* have the nation's best interest at heart--even if you still think
> that he *probably* or *likely* has some other agenda?)

Not what I tried to imply, although if he does believe this foreign
policy debacle is in America's best interest, he and his cronies are
deluding themselves, and the rest of Americans supporting this
disaster.

> So, for France and Russia, it's all about OIL. But that doesn't
> necessarily mean it's about OIL for the US and UK--except, of course, in
> dealing with these potential UN Security Council vetoes for whom it is all
> about oil.

Why do you believe this is the case? Both the US and UK have
tremendous stakes in the petroleum business. I wonder who you believe
will control Iraqi petroleum interests if and when the Iraqi
government is brought down, or chaos, rioting, looting and mayhem
rules after the regime is brought down. If this is limited toward
only US, UK, and Australian aggression, it is very likely that the
entire petroleum industry would be taken over by US and UK oil
interests as a means for stabilization in a very volatile market.

> Hmm. Perhaps because just across the straits from Australia is one of the
> largest Muslim nations--where a bunch of Australians recently died in a
> terrorist attack and so perhaps Australia sees it as being in it's best
> interest to get real democracy going in as many Islamic countries as
> possible and get rid of dictators sponsoring terrorism?

I have long held that most of the islamic world will view any such
aggression as just that. In fact, it could likely lead to even more
radical regimes as hysteria against the US, and its "allies" builds up
further pressure. The argument, right or wrong, will be that this is
a war against Islam. And if Iraq is overthrown, that argument will
sell. I don't see any long term stabilization should that occur.

On the positive side however, I've noticed that the anti-war rhetoric
is heating up, and the numbers are growing, and even the Democrats and
many cooler headed Republicans are beginning to fall out from the
Shrub Regime's<tm> penchant for global military imperialism.

> Let's see. Iraq and NK and Iran and all the other countries are the
> children of the US. Therefore, the US needs to make sure that everyone
> gets the same size piece of cake and the same size dish of ice cream.
Right?

I never claimed we should give 'em anything, did I? I am calling for a
neutral and even handed US foreign policy.

> No. The present governments of Iraq, Iran, NK (and, in fact, China and a
> few others) are enemies of the US. We didn't ask for it to be that way,
we
> don't want it to be that way, and in many cases, we've probably done more
> to help many of these places than to hurt them.

I have to respectfully disagree. We've done everything we could
possible do, to rub third world nations the wrong way for over five
decades. The only difference this time around is that we are forcing
one block of countries (a huge one to be sure) toward unity of purpose
in defending themselves against this aggression. We have become the
chief catalyst for bringing this unity where none previously existed.

> But regardless of whether
> we deserve to have them as enemies or not, the fact remains that they ARE
> our enemies.

Enemies in this case of our own making.

> That means that we need to use all our guile, cunning,
> diplomacy, pressure, and yes, occasionally force, to make it so that they
> will hurt us the least. "Fairness" doesn't cut it.

I see. Likely then the only way to change your opinions on this is if
the fallout from the upcoming next Gulf War II turns out badly, or the
results become so horrendous that individuals who support the
initiation of force against others reap the whirlwind. That could
occur in a lot of ways. Battlefield scenarios where troops are
massively exposed to chemical or biological elements, further
terrorist attacks upon US interests and people at home and abroad, and
a further deterioration in the global economy where the US loses
favour and is blamed for it.

> And yes, NK really IS
> different than Iraq. NK doesn't need nukes to lay waste to Seoul and
about
> everything in SK that's within about 50 miles of the DMZ. All the nukes
do
> is put the rest of SK and Japan into the equation.

So, this is hardly threatening to the US, is it? I would suggest
rather that South Korea, Japan, China and Russia have more of an
interest in this joke and holdover from the cold war. If the US were
to pull out the troops from Japan and South Korea, don't you believe
that this would necessitate dialogue among those just mentioned to
disarm N. Korea?

> Yup. Before a war, stocks go down. Once the outcome of the war is known
> for sure (the war doesn't even have to be over), they go back up (been
that
> way in just about every war this century). Probably the worst thing for
> the stock market would be to heed the advice of the anti-war/appeasement
> crowd and "wait for the inspections to finish".

Heard a news report a couple of days ago where petroleum reserves in
the US are reaching levels for deep concern. Now that Venezuela is no
longer pumping much oil, and considering that things really reach a
critical mass in the Middle East, I could envision the possibility at
least that no economic recovery would occur even if somehow we manage
to win this one, localized, war. Coupled with an extraordinary cold
winter in the US (which is taking shape as we speak), the demand for
oil could drive prices into the stratosphere. Airlines would be
further crunched, along with other transportation sectors.

What do you believe might happen if the Islamic world really does
become unstable as a result of US/UK aggression. What if the
instability incapacitated other oil producers, such as Indonesia,
Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. It is difficult for me to imagine how even
a so-called successful removal of the Iraqi regime, would not trigger
large scale disruptions throughout the Islamic world. Retaliation in
the form of terrorist attacks would be the most likely result.

> So, unless you
> *really* think that there are going to be major casualties or major
> terrorist incidents in response, you're probably looking at the last big
> buying opportunity before the start of the next major bull market.

Interesting that no analysts I have been listening to suggest a bull
market is anywhere even close, even discounting a peaceful resolution
to the current Gulf crisis. A lot of small personal investors have
already left the stock market and are investing in tangible property
such as real estate. These are usually long-term assets, and more
difficult to dispose of. So even if a trend does develop for a
reversal in the economy, it will take a while before capital already
committed would make its way back into the markets again any time
soon.

It would help matters of course, if Saddam Hussein were to just leave
and go into exile on his own. Should that happen too, Iraq would be
anything than stable, as power centres jockey for power. Presumably we
would have a very harder time justifying intervention in such a case.

> Now, we're back to opinion. I suppose you think that Bush should simply
do
> the bidding of the OIL-greedy French and Russians (in order to not
"destroy
> alliances").

I am leaning more in the direction that "oil" is his chief purpose for
maintaining this posture anyway, perhaps with the urging of US/UK and
global interests.

> Or maybe what he should do is yank the troops out of the
> Persian Gulf region and plant them SK.

I'd go for the first part. But certainly not planting them again on
foreign soil anywhere. In fact, yanking the troops out of South Korea
and Japan should, rather, follow.

> That ought to give you enough time
> to figure out all the arguments for why there shouldn't be a war in Korea
> and why we should simply pay NK off again for more broken promises.

Nothing of the sort. The regional players, all whose economies are
much higher than N. Korea, would then be forced to deal with the
"rogue state", which would be N. Korea's worst nightmare.

> Heck,
> if he did that, you might even start coming up with reasons to go back
> after Iraq.

You haven't followed my line of argument very well. I'm suggesting a
neutral, even-handed US foreign policy. No foreign policy based on
military imperialism.

> Seems to me, we just had one. Part of it took place back in 1994, and the
> more obvious part in 2000. There were some "reactionary forces" that
> masked part of the regime change, but it continued in 2002. Given trends,
> we might look back in a couple of years and say that "in 2003, we were in
> the middle of a regime change in the United States of America."

I'll only buy into the possibility for the last segment, but it's too
early to tell, since a lot can transpire in 2003. If things really go
very badly, the economy sinks into a deep depression, body bags start
coming home, or terrorism increases in scope and size, then yes a
regime change is most likely going to happen; but I am not certain we
will like the shape of that change. It could propel a giant
acceleration into fascism rather than an environment for greater
liberty.

On the other hand, if the US/UK invasion of Iraq doesn't take place,
and a peaceful resolution to the problem can be reached, then
Americans will be forced to consider real issues, economic and social
ones, in which to dwell. Unfortunately however, we have already
created this environment of hostility, and it will take many years
before we ever can achieve any common ground in the Islamic world. It
is therefore unlikely that terrorism will go away any time in the
foreseeable future.

> That's one of the nice things about living in a
> country with a democratically-elected representative government, regime
> changes occur peacefully and they generally occur within a few years of
> when a majority of the people *want* them to occur.

A regime change in the larger context would have to include more than
simply one, two, or three Administrations. A regime change more
favourable to liberty would have to include a non aggressive US
foreign policy based upon neutrality and respect for
self-determination, and a concomitant dismantling of decades of
domestic government intervention in economic and social structures. A
further reduction in the US economic order and expanding military
intervention elsewhere, would have the dual propensity to further
government intrusion both domestically and internationally.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:23:52 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com> wrote in small part:

> North Korea is in the process of renouncing its prior
> commitments to nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and the US
government
> claims this is NOT an issue worth going to war over!

Has that claim actually been made, or rather has there not been a
decisive official pronouncement on the subject?

> Meanwhile, the US stock market is in big time melt-down mode as we
speak.
> The nation's major airlines are all facing possible bankruptcy (and I
hold a
> lot of airline stock, proportionately to my portfolio). But it isn't
airline
> stocks alone that are being held in the balance here, it is the entire
US
> economy. analysts now are suggesting that the US war rhetoric is the
single
> deciding factor prohibiting a rapid expansion in the US economy! I'm
> getting that from several sources, all of which have major connections
with
> Wall Street analysts.

What I'm hearing is that the resulting uncertainty is at fault, but that
if actual war breaks out, expansion will resume at pace.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:43:35 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Good wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > North Korea is in the process of renouncing its prior
> > commitments to nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and the US
> government
> > claims this is NOT an issue worth going to war over!

You replied:
> Has that claim actually been made, or rather has there not been a
> decisive official pronouncement on the subject?

Probably not yet, but their effort to withdraw from previous commitments to
curtail their nuclear weapons programme and allow for UN inspection teams to
monitor the agreement, have been shown to be a fraud. They have finally
admitted that they do have an ongoing nuclear programme in violation of that
agreement, and subsequently kicked the UN inspection team out of the
country, claiming they intend to reactivate their nuclear plants and abolish
such agreements now.

I really meant this in the context of going to war with Iraq over "alleged"
violations of not disarming their chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
programmes. It seems to me that North Korea, in this case, has not only
admitted that they have a nuclear programme in place now, but have had one
all along even after signing on to the agreement to dismantle them about a
decade ago! In short, what the US and Britain claim Iraq may be doing,
still unproven by the UN Inspection team, North Korea has stated they intend
to revoke such commitments, and refuse to allow further UN inspection
monitoring!

In my judgement anyway, the ONLY reason why the US and UK don't want to
provoke North Korea right now is because it would be very detrimental to the
political structure of east Asia should a military response to North Korean
beliguerancy become an issue (at least right now). I believe the US
military is capabable of fight on two such fronts, but this would get really
messy, particularly because the idea is to use sophisticated weaponry never
unleashed in any wartime scenario, to end most of the hostilities within a
few days, or weeks. Any provocation against North Korea would require a lot
of resources that are probably in short supply -- in other words, a
simultaneous attack on North Korea in the same time approximation with Iraq,
could make this a real messy affair. A tremendous amount of such technical
weaponry and the platforms to launch an attack upon Iraq and get it over
with quickly, probably (my guess) couldn't be assembled to launch a
simultaneous attack upon North Korea at the same time.

Also, it is the judgement by many analyts that North Korea also already
possesses a limited nuclear strike capability. Probably Iraq does not.

Keep in mind the politics too. The Middle East is really anti-American,
anti-West. Anti-Anything absent an Islamic base. They have a tremendous
support for this posture throughout the Islamic world. This is why I have
been aserting for so long, we can't really win in this war against Iraq,
namely because even Iraq's neighbours don't support it at all unless strong
armed by the US government's military superiority. Even Turkey, a so-called
key US ally, is doing everything it can to stop this conflict before it even
gets off the ground.

By contrast politically, east Asia is very different in terms of political
realities. North Korea is an isolated fish that no one wants to rock the
political or economic boat. Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, the
Philippines, and Russia certainly don't want to see this go any further in
terms of a military standoff with the US. The only economy that is moving
rapidly is China. Japan's economy has been in the shit house for a decade or
more, and South Korea is just now starting to emerge after several years of
economic decline. Same with Taiwan. Russian interests in the region range
from petroleum and steel production, to foreign investment. North Korea
isn't really a favourite topic to discuss, and their effort to rebuild their
nuclear programme flies in the face of both economic and political
realities. In my judgement, if the US did nothing at all, North Korea would
be quickly addressed by the regional players and forced to tow the line.

Contrary to what Lowell Savage wrote, Japan will most likely NOT build a
nuclear weapon capability in spite of North Korea's beligurancy. It won't be
necessary. And probably South Korea would not be motivated in that direction
either. China already has nuclear weapons, and their capability is far
superior to anything North Korea will ever produce. Same with Russia. No one
in the region will allow North Korea to thumb its nose, jepordise the
region's economic and political stability at any time in the near future.
The only entity that might create such tension, is continued meddling by the
US government and US foreign policy.

I wrote last time:
> > Meanwhile, the US stock market is in big time melt-down mode as we
> speak.
> > The nation's major airlines are all facing possible bankruptcy (and I
> hold a
> > lot of airline stock, proportionately to my portfolio). But it isn't
> airline
> > stocks alone that are being held in the balance here, it is the entire
> US
> > economy. analysts now are suggesting that the US war rhetoric is the
> single
> > deciding factor prohibiting a rapid expansion in the US economy! I'm
> > getting that from several sources, all of which have major connections
> with
> > Wall Street analysts.

You replied:
> What I'm hearing is that the resulting uncertainty is at fault, but that
> if actual war breaks out, expansion will resume at pace.

Actually, I've heard that if war breaks out, and the end of the war is
quickly resolved, then expansion has a chance to take place. If this is a
long, drawn out conflagration, and produces more volitility in petroleum
prices and availability, this could get very messy. That's the card no one
really knows. What really will happen if the US/UK and a few others sign on
and attack Iraq, which almost none of its neighbours, including so-called
key US allies in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere support. What will
happen if certain governments are overthrown, and oil supplies placed in
serious question? What will happen if terrorist attacks against US targets
abroad and at home increase?

What can I say? Even some of the best economic analysts refuse to try and
predict how this will turn out. European economic analysts aren't predicting
(even discounting a possible unilateral US attack upon Iraq) any solid
growth for the European Union for the next two years. Other than China,
Asian predictions are pretty stattic as well. There have only been hints by
some US economists that a turnaround would be quickly achieved if the US
really attacks Iraq, and wins a decisive victory in a few short days or
weeks.

I am skepticle of that. I don't believe enough attention has been given to
the potential fall out from such an attack, in terms of how distabalizing
that could potentially be through the islamic world, and the economic
reprocussions in terms of sustained petroleum production. We also don't know
how the political makeup of the islamic world with weather through what is
mainly perceived as a US attack upon Islam, rather than simply upon Iraq.
You know that the stability of certain islamic governments are volatile to
what US foreign policy current is, particularly in the Middle East. Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan, and Indonesia come to mind. In any case, even more stable
Islamic states, such as Malaysia aren't signing on either.

One thing I am rather certain of however, is that if somehow a peaceful
diplomatic resolution comes about and defuses any attack upon Iraq, it would
like create a climate for economic expasion. I doubt if the Shrub
Regime<tm> is interested in that. The only criteria that may force the US
government to call it off, is a resounding "NO!" by the international
players. Also, if Saddam Hussein and his government agrees to go into exile
and leave, might contribute in some way, but I fail to see how this could
result without the complete chaos and probably dismemberment of Iraq. Such
would likely destabalize Turkey as well, and even perhaps Islamic states
south of Russia.

This maybe the Shrub Regime's<tm> worst nightmare. I'm not really so sure
why he made this such a central issue in the first place. He had all of the
support he needed following the attacks of 9/11. By expanding this in
hopeless directions he has lost a lot of his momentum, particularly by
revisiting the Iraq thing again. If left alone, I doubt Saddam Hussein
would even care very much about the problems with the Palistinians, or even
al-Quieda. After all, Iraq has a sizeable Christian minority that have
largely been left alone. As any dictator does, he probably just wants the
power to rule. If he feels that power is being challenged by some outside
force that has no business or interest at all, then all of the other factors
get called into question.

Then again, the bottom line. He is no threat to the US unless of course we
push him to form alliances with terrorist groups such as al-Quieda for his
own survival. I doubt too that prior to the US response to his invasion of
Kuwait, that he really had a problem with the US government, or would seek
such alliances. He would have no reason for doing so, at least at that time.
As far as I am concerned, the Kuwait thing was really a regional matter. And
believe me, any response by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other such neighbours,
including Iran, would likely have resolved much of that in a different way
than mandated by US, or UN, intervention.

I'm still wondering why all of this fuss over the Kuwait invasion. Maybe,
possibly "oil"! Who knows?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: 26 Jan 2003 11:39:56 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 05:43, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Robert!
>
> Robert Good wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > > North Korea is in the process of renouncing its prior
> > > commitments to nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and the US
> > government
> > > claims this is NOT an issue worth going to war over!
>
> You replied:
> > Has that claim actually been made, or rather has there not been a
> > decisive official pronouncement on the subject?
>
> Probably not yet, but their effort to withdraw from previous commitments
to
> curtail their nuclear weapons programme and allow for UN inspection teams
to
> monitor the agreement, have been shown to be a fraud. They have finally
> admitted that they do have an ongoing nuclear programme in violation of
that
> agreement, and subsequently kicked the UN inspection team out of the
> country, claiming they intend to reactivate their nuclear plants and
abolish
> such agreements now.
>
> I really meant this in the context of going to war with Iraq over
"alleged"
> violations of not disarming their chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
> programmes. It seems to me that North Korea, in this case, has not only
> admitted that they have a nuclear programme in place now, but have had one
> all along even after signing on to the agreement to dismantle them about a
> decade ago! In short, what the US and Britain claim Iraq may be doing,
> still unproven by the UN Inspection team, North Korea has stated they
intend
> to revoke such commitments, and refuse to allow further UN inspection
> monitoring!

There may be a difference not yet discussed here. I'm not sure since I
have not read the documents, but it may well be that there is an escape
clause in the agreements made by N. Korea. Just as there was an out
clause for the dreadful ABM Treaty, which we exercised, there *may* be
on in the treaty N. Korea is exercising.

If there is, they have just as much right to use it as we did the one in
the ABM treaty, and building military forces up over it would be stupid.

Just something to think about.

> I wrote last time:
> > > Meanwhile, the US stock market is in big time melt-down mode as we
> > speak.
> > > The nation's major airlines are all facing possible bankruptcy (and I
> > hold a
> > > lot of airline stock, proportionately to my portfolio). But it isn't
> > airline
> > > stocks alone that are being held in the balance here, it is the entire
> > US
> > > economy. analysts now are suggesting that the US war rhetoric is the
> > single
> > > deciding factor prohibiting a rapid expansion in the US economy! I'm
> > > getting that from several sources, all of which have major connections
> > with
> > > Wall Street analysts.
>
> You replied:
> > What I'm hearing is that the resulting uncertainty is at fault, but that
> > if actual war breaks out, expansion will resume at pace.
>
> Actually, I've heard that if war breaks out, and the end of the war is
> quickly resolved, then expansion has a chance to take place. If this is a
> long, drawn out conflagration, and produces more volitility in petroleum

Oil prices have risen, but are totally unrelated to the Middle east, for
that we just need to look south.

That stands as a counterpoint to the idea it is all about oil. We have a
situation in S. America where both sides are *begging* for our
assistance in a civil war type situation, where ~90% of terrorist
attacks that involve U.S. interests take place, and is responsible for
the latest increase in oil prices, yet the military is not going there,
has not been, and probably won't be.

We get more oil from African countries(~15%) than the Persian Gulf
(12%), and even more from Canada,Venezuela,and Mexico (24%).

Over half of the US oil imports are from the Western Hemisphere. Latin
America imports 90% of their consumption oil from the Middle East. Iraq
only has ~100 Billion barrels of oil in the reserve list, slightly more
than Kuwait.

IMO, the largest problem for the Middle East will be when the US further
decreases imports from them. It will be more than just us. As we develop
better alternatives that are more cost-competitive, and better
efficiency (though we are really close to capping that there is only so
much energy to be had from it), the instability in that region will
increase as the governments lose their funding.

After that, we may well see an entirely different government style
emerge from there. I'd put money on that makeup being less autocratic
and dictatorial. What happens when the primary product of the region is
no longer the cornerstone of civilization?

IMO, this is the best way to achieve the goals of more libertarian
oriented governments in the Middle East. It can be achieved two ways:
Suck the wells dry, or make them inconsequential.

The shifts in oil import by region are a start on the second, and even
part of the first. Development of bio-fuels and bio-generate *crude* are
a key ingredient as well.

Jet fuel alone accounts for nearly 2 million barrels/day of US
consumption.

Another ingredient in this mix is power generation, and a replacement
for heating oils on the Eastern seaboard. One aspect of this may be
through the return to nuclear power for power generation.

One thing that is often ignored by the pundits, is that the profit level
for oil producers has been dropping quickly the last decade, it is now
under %7. If profit levels continue to decrease, significant changes
will occur. What those will be is hard to predict.

I predict increased prices at the pump and the house (for heating),
increased prices for airline travel, and since transportation is the
lion's share of the consumption, an overall increase in cost of
transported goods.

As this happens, alternatives and technology used to lower consumptions
will become more cots competitive, leading to a change in economies of
scale in those areas; which will result in them becoming more cost
effective (cheaper) than oil based products as we see them today.

I figure a 25% reduction (minimum) in US demand in the oil market in the
next decade. This will bring about a new era in this field. The effects
of this will be far reaching, global in scale. Such a reduction is not
as far fetched as it sounds.

Mandating that government vehicles be E85 vehicles where currently
gasoline powered, and government diesel vehicles switch to bio-diesel
can represent an estimated two million barrels/day reduction in
transportation use of oil -- about 15% of our current total usage.

Conveniently, such a switch would provide a starting point for better
economies of scale in these fields, without mandating what the private
citizen does. As E85 and bio-diesel powered vehicles become dominant in
the marketplace, it is not out of the question to see our dependence on
oil shrink annually.

If the mandate on government use of E85 and bio-diesel were implemented
in the next 3-5 years, we could see that 15%+ net drop in oil demand in
by 2013-5. I'd predict an additional drop of 8-12 points in the
following 7 years. Thus, if this were done we could expect a net
reduction of 23-30% in US oil demand in the next two decades.

[aside: this is an area that Libertarians can take from the greens and
the democrats, while taking it away from the republicans too. We
advocate that the government --the largest polluter known to man-- clean
up *it's* act through the mandating of government vehicles using E85 and
bio-diesel, thus trumping the eco-freaks, and building more demand w/o
increasing regulation on we the common folk -- thus staying true to our
principles.]

Some easily visible effects would be the ability to completely eliminate
Middle East oil imports. With positive relations between us and S.
American countries that we are currently importing from (Mexico,
Venezuela), it would not be out of the question to export of these
technologies to those countries, as well as Canada and the UK.

If these countries were to adopt these technologies and see a 25% drop
in their needs, the effects multiply. At this point, those countries
that rely on oil exports as their source of income face fatal issues.
Especially despotic ones.

The drop in demand from the top 5 consumers will necessitate a drop in
oil's price. This will move the demand more to the so-called third world
countries, who may see it as an opportunity to bootstrap their
economies. However, these countries are also the poorest nations, and as
such the demand increase from there will be minimal, as will the delay
of the inevitable fall of the oil regimes. As the cost of alternatives
to an oil economy become cheaper than oil, the third world countries
will adopt these in higher quantities for two reasons.

First, cost. Second, after witnessing the boon to the economies of the
currently industrialized worlds, and the decreasing importance on
product from a volatile part of the world, they will learn the lessons
we learned the hard way; and not repeat them.

So, IMO, within the next 30-50 years, the Middle East will be relegated
to a non-player due to the lack of income from oil it currently enjoys.

> I'm still wondering why all of this fuss over the Kuwait invasion. Maybe,
> possibly "oil"! Who knows?

Maybe because it was WRONG?! how about if the US just decided to "annex"
Mexico, or the Venzuela, or one of the Canadian provinces just because
we could?! That would be wrong to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:52:32 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote (in part) to Frank Reichert...

> Another ingredient in this mix is power generation, and a replacement
> for heating oils on the Eastern seaboard. One aspect of this may be
> through the return to nuclear power for power generation.

Home/facility heating is one area in which BTU energy is absolutely
necessary, regardless of its source. Electricity for this purpose when
petroleum or natural gas derivatives are the source for generation, is the
most costly form. You are correct, nuclear power is far more energy
efficient, and environmentally cleaner than fosil fuel generation of
electric power. Hyrdro generated electric power is also a cheaper and
cleaner alternative, but not available in most areas of the country, e.g.:
the midwest, southwest, and other areas where water drop conditions do not
exist.

There are of course, cost effective ways to produce clean and sufficient
electrical power (non-heating) through the use of wind and solar
applications. It is flabbergasting that many of the large petroleum
companies are in the process of buying or starting their own solar
photovoltic production, which in my judgement will keep these devices in a
price range that is cost prohibitive to many. BP, Shell and Chevron-Texico
are some of the new players. Nevertheless, the retail price for these
devices have dropped somewhat over the last decade, but the cost per amp at
12VDC is still running at about $100 per amp. Hopefully these large
monopolies of power will not further monopolize the solar photovoltic
modules, the more competition that exists, the lower the retail cost will
be.

The quality and performance of solar modules has risen dramatically as well.
The moduls are smaller, and produce more electric power than ever before.
It is not uncommon anymore to see modules producing 6-8 amps of power at
12VDC, where before the average array only produced about half that much.
Also, because they have become smaller, they require far less space to mount
on smaller homes and lot sizes, even condomeniums where size is often
restrictive.

> I predict increased prices at the pump and the house (for heating),
> increased prices for airline travel, and since transportation is the
> lion's share of the consumption, an overall increase in cost of
> transported goods.

Transportation costs might become even more competitive due to restructuring
of the major airlines, including bankrupt carrier United Airlines.
Contental, Delta, Northwest and United are in the process of spinning off
portions of their operations into regional carriers, and as in the case of
United, competing with the Jet Blues, Southwest and other economy carriers.
United for examples has ordered a fleet of smaller, more fuel effient
aircraft for their proposed spin off into two companies. So, even if
petroleum costs increase, it will be partially offset by smaller, more fuel
efficient aircraft and higher passenger loads filling up these aircraft. The
pilots Unions are certainly not happy with this direction and are poised to
challenge it, but for the airlines there simply is no way to operate
competitively in the current market without challenging some of the start up
regional economy carriers, whos wages for pilots are about one-half of that
of the major carriers mentioned above.

The above restructuring is likely going to take a while, but by 2005 the
airline opportunities available to customers will look a lot different than
it does today.

> I figure a 25% reduction (minimum) in US demand in the oil market in the
> next decade. This will bring about a new era in this field. The effects
> of this will be far reaching, global in scale. Such a reduction is not
> as far fetched as it sounds.

No, it isn't. That is as long as free-market conditions prevail, and
monopolization isn't seized by the major petroleum cabal. As I mentioned
above concerning solar electric generation, the prices will continue to drop
as long as those producing such products are not taken over by the large
energy companies. It is practical right now for the average size home to
have its electrical requirements produced mostly by solar power now (in most
areas of the US) for around $10,000. That requires a lot of modifications to
such things as lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and cooking devices.

Refrigeration for example is a practical area where NONE of the major
appliance manufactors have made substantial progress in producing units that
use about 10-15 percent of the usage such units currently do, yet SunFrost
and other manufactures have been producing such units for years! The demand
is simply not there yet for wholesale mass production for such units, that
use far more efficient compressors, and are heavily insulated with about
six-inch walls. I've noticed recently there is a new freezer manufactured
now that consumes 25 percent of the energy per cubic foot of comparable
sized units for around $675.00! SunFrost models are still very costly, and
likely their cost would be much higher than that. But slowly the technology
and design is starting to catch on, and with competition, even SunFrost
which has held the monopoly on such units, will be forced to reduce retail
costs.

> Mandating that government vehicles be E85 vehicles where currently
> gasoline powered, and government diesel vehicles switch to bio-diesel
> can represent an estimated two million barrels/day reduction in
> transportation use of oil -- about 15% of our current total usage.

Could be much more costly, since it would require nationwide availability
for distribution for only a very limited market, unless that is, consumers
also begin to purchase such vehicles.

> Conveniently, such a switch would provide a starting point for better
> economies of scale in these fields, without mandating what the private
> citizen does. As E85 and bio-diesel powered vehicles become dominant in
> the marketplace, it is not out of the question to see our dependence on
> oil shrink annually.

I know Ford has been working on a hybrid automobile, and the technology will
come in due course. Distribution changes will be costly however, since right
now it is not available over a wide scale, and until that matter is
resolved, consumer interest will be very limited. Probably initially only
local commuter type vehicles for use in a city or limited geographical range
where such fuel and support would be available. Once the availability has
spread over the entire country, then consumers would most likely start
really taking a look at this.

> If the mandate on government use of E85 and bio-diesel were implemented
> in the next 3-5 years, we could see that 15%+ net drop in oil demand in
> by 2013-5. I'd predict an additional drop of 8-12 points in the
> following 7 years. Thus, if this were done we could expect a net
> reduction of 23-30% in US oil demand in the next two decades.

Certainly possible, although under the current "central planning" government
approach, it likely isn't going to be as rosy as you predict. Gerald Ford
declared "Energy Independence" back in the mid-1970s as his goal. Well, that
never panned out. The government has even mandated fuel efficient cars in
terms of percentage of production, that too largely failed as Americans
starting buying up SUVs and light trucks that were largely exempt from such
regulation fuel efficiency regulations.

> Some easily visible effects would be the ability to completely eliminate
> Middle East oil imports. With positive relations between us and S.
> American countries that we are currently importing from (Mexico,
> Venezuela), it would not be out of the question to export of these
> technologies to those countries, as well as Canada and the UK.

Mid East oil production is most likely to dramatically decrease anyway,
regardless of the outcome of the Iraq thing. As I've mentioned before,
Russia will be soon producing more petroleum than Saudi Arabia, and
logically will become the European dealer of choice to supply most of
eastern and central Europe, while British and Norweigan sources will serve
western European regions. I easily could invision of series of oil pipelines
coming from Russia into various regional hubs throughout eastern and central
Europe. The mideast is not really a great location to be for serving Europe
or north and south American markets. Also, the mideast is political
unstable, and regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi adventure, it likely
will continue to be volitile for several decades. In fact, probably the only
areas in which the mid-east might be copetitive in the intermediate term, is
south Asia and east Africa. Indonesia, Malaysia and China will no doubt
become the centres for serving east Asia.

> As the cost of alternatives
> to an oil economy become cheaper than oil, the third world countries
> will adopt these in higher quantities for two reasons.
> First, cost. Second, after witnessing the boon to the economies of the
> currently industrialized worlds, and the decreasing importance on
> product from a volatile part of the world, they will learn the lessons
> we learned the hard way; and not repeat them.

We have technologies now that can greatly reduce the amount of electrical
generation dependence upon petroleum. Again, unfortunately, the petroleum
giants are grabbing a greater and greater monopoly over such products and
devices. So, in the short term, this might be a mixed bag. But the real
impediment for third world developing nations (such as the Philippines) is
still the initial cost involved in utilizing such technological
advancements. Most filipinos don't use even remotely close, per capita, the
electrical consumption of the average US household, although the cost
ofelectic power, per killowatt is 2nd in east Asia, after Japan. Most of
that cost is due to ineffiency in power generation, and a lot of lost power
through antiquated systems. So, for a filipino to go "solar power", the
cost for even the small fraction of wattage used compared to America, the
cost for set up would still be in the $2,000 - $4,000 range. Entirely
prohibitive for the majority of the population here. If pricing were to
drop dramatically however, which could happen under competitive conditions,
then it COULD become feasible and a viable alternative.

I want to point out too, that such systems are not something that power
companies might find useful or attractive in their current state. 12VDC is
not cost effective, before that is, it is converted to 120VAC or higher.
Transmission of 12VDC loses a lot of power over very short distances in
transmission. The technology is more suited for individual structures, such
as homes, or office buildings, than for commercial power generation and
distribution to a community.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: 04 Feb 2003 16:57:21 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 21:52, Frank M. Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote (in part) to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Another ingredient in this mix is power generation, and a replacement
> > for heating oils on the Eastern seaboard. One aspect of this may be
> > through the return to nuclear power for power generation.
>
> Home/facility heating is one area in which BTU energy is absolutely
> necessary, regardless of its source. Electricity for this purpose when
> petroleum or natural gas derivatives are the source for generation, is the
> most costly form. You are correct, nuclear power is far more energy
> efficient, and environmentally cleaner than fosil fuel generation of
> electric power. Hyrdro generated electric power is also a cheaper and
> cleaner alternative, but not available in most areas of the country, e.g.:
> the midwest, southwest, and other areas where water drop conditions do not
> exist.
>
> There are of course, cost effective ways to produce clean and sufficient
> electrical power (non-heating) through the use of wind and solar
> applications. It is flabbergasting that many of the large petroleum
> companies are in the process of buying or starting their own solar
> photovoltic production, which in my judgement will keep these devices in a
> price range that is cost prohibitive to many. BP, Shell and Chevron-Texico
> are some of the new players. Nevertheless, the retail price for these
> devices have dropped somewhat over the last decade, but the cost per amp
at
> 12VDC is still running at about $100 per amp. Hopefully these large
> monopolies of power will not further monopolize the solar photovoltic
> modules, the more competition that exists, the lower the retail cost will
> be.
>
> The quality and performance of solar modules has risen dramatically as
well.
> The moduls are smaller, and produce more electric power than ever before.
> It is not uncommon anymore to see modules producing 6-8 amps of power at
> 12VDC, where before the average array only produced about half that much.
> Also, because they have become smaller, they require far less space to
mount
> on smaller homes and lot sizes, even condomeniums where size is often
> restrictive.
>

The way to get the most out of solar is to convert as much as possible
to DC as opposed to AC. Too much is lost in the conversion form DC
(produced by solar) to AC (standard housing power). I've looked a lot at
the "off-grid" houses, and they've made substantial progress, though
still too expensive for Joe Sixpack (even Joe AverageDoctor/Lawyer).

> > I predict increased prices at the pump and the house (for heating),
> > increased prices for airline travel, and since transportation is the
> > lion's share of the consumption, an overall increase in cost of
> > transported goods.
>
> Transportation costs might become even more competitive due to
restructuring
> of the major airlines, including bankrupt carrier United Airlines.
> Contental, Delta, Northwest and United are in the process of spinning off
> portions of their operations into regional carriers, and as in the case of
> United, competing with the Jet Blues, Southwest and other economy
carriers.
> United for examples has ordered a fleet of smaller, more fuel effient
> aircraft for their proposed spin off into two companies. So, even if
> petroleum costs increase, it will be partially offset by smaller, more
fuel
> efficient aircraft and higher passenger loads filling up these aircraft.
The
> pilots Unions are certainly not happy with this direction and are poised
to
> challenge it, but for the airlines there simply is no way to operate
> competitively in the current market without challenging some of the start
up
> regional economy carriers, whos wages for pilots are about one-half of
that
> of the major carriers mentioned above.
>
> The above restructuring is likely going to take a while, but by 2005 the
> airline opportunities available to customers will look a lot different
than
> it does today.

IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
maintenance cost savings).

Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
than jumbos.

One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.

>
> > I figure a 25% reduction (minimum) in US demand in the oil market in the
> > next decade. This will bring about a new era in this field. The effects
> > of this will be far reaching, global in scale. Such a reduction is not
> > as far fetched as it sounds.
>
> No, it isn't. That is as long as free-market conditions prevail, and
> monopolization isn't seized by the major petroleum cabal. As I mentioned
> above concerning solar electric generation, the prices will continue to
drop
> as long as those producing such products are not taken over by the large
> energy companies. It is practical right now for the average size home to
> have its electrical requirements produced mostly by solar power now (in
most
> areas of the US) for around $10,000. That requires a lot of modifications
to
> such things as lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and cooking
devices.

Yes, it does. Nearly a wholesale change of the wiring and devices.
Doable, though.

> > Mandating that government vehicles be E85 vehicles where currently
> > gasoline powered, and government diesel vehicles switch to bio-diesel
> > can represent an estimated two million barrels/day reduction in
> > transportation use of oil -- about 15% of our current total usage.
>
> Could be much more costly, since it would require nationwide availability
> for distribution for only a very limited market, unless that is, consumers
> also begin to purchase such vehicles.

Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
already here in Boise. :)

The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)

My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".

Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
landfill uh .. filling.

> > Conveniently, such a switch would provide a starting point for better
> > economies of scale in these fields, without mandating what the private
> > citizen does. As E85 and bio-diesel powered vehicles become dominant in
> > the marketplace, it is not out of the question to see our dependence on
> > oil shrink annually.
>
> I know Ford has been working on a hybrid automobile, and the technology
will
> come in due course. Distribution changes will be costly however, since
right
> now it is not available over a wide scale, and until that matter is
> resolved, consumer interest will be very limited. Probably initially only
> local commuter type vehicles for use in a city or limited geographical
range
> where such fuel and support would be available. Once the availability has
> spread over the entire country, then consumers would most likely start
> really taking a look at this.

Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)

Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
working to get caught up).

We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
resource too. :)

> > If the mandate on government use of E85 and bio-diesel were implemented
> > in the next 3-5 years, we could see that 15%+ net drop in oil demand in
> > by 2013-5. I'd predict an additional drop of 8-12 points in the
> > following 7 years. Thus, if this were done we could expect a net
> > reduction of 23-30% in US oil demand in the next two decades.
>
> Certainly possible, although under the current "central planning"
government
> approach, it likely isn't going to be as rosy as you predict. Gerald Ford
> declared "Energy Independence" back in the mid-1970s as his goal. Well,
that
> never panned out. The government has even mandated fuel efficient cars in
> terms of percentage of production, that too largely failed as Americans
> starting buying up SUVs and light trucks that were largely exempt from
such
> regulation fuel efficiency regulations.

I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
sold at half off, you can by twice as much.

>
> > Some easily visible effects would be the ability to completely eliminate
> > Middle East oil imports. With positive relations between us and S.
> > American countries that we are currently importing from (Mexico,
> > Venezuela), it would not be out of the question to export of these
> > technologies to those countries, as well as Canada and the UK.
>
> Mid East oil production is most likely to dramatically decrease anyway,
> regardless of the outcome of the Iraq thing. As I've mentioned before,
> Russia will be soon producing more petroleum than Saudi Arabia, and
> logically will become the European dealer of choice to supply most of
> eastern and central Europe, while British and Norweigan sources will serve
> western European regions. I easily could invision of series of oil
pipelines
> coming from Russia into various regional hubs throughout eastern and
central
> Europe. The mideast is not really a great location to be for serving
Europe
> or north and south American markets. Also, the mideast is political
> unstable, and regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi adventure, it likely
> will continue to be volitile for several decades. In fact, probably the
only
> areas in which the mid-east might be copetitive in the intermediate term,
is
> south Asia and east Africa. Indonesia, Malaysia and China will no doubt
> become the centres for serving east Asia.

I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.

>
> > As the cost of alternatives
> > to an oil economy become cheaper than oil, the third world countries
> > will adopt these in higher quantities for two reasons.
> > First, cost. Second, after witnessing the boon to the economies of the
> > currently industrialized worlds, and the decreasing importance on
> > product from a volatile part of the world, they will learn the lessons
> > we learned the hard way; and not repeat them.
>
> We have technologies now that can greatly reduce the amount of electrical
> generation dependence upon petroleum. Again, unfortunately, the petroleum
> giants are grabbing a greater and greater monopoly over such products and
> devices. So, in the short term, this might be a mixed bag. But the real
> impediment for third world developing nations (such as the Philippines) is
> still the initial cost involved in utilizing such technological
> advancements. Most filipinos don't use even remotely close, per capita,
the
> electrical consumption of the average US household, although the cost
> ofelectic power, per killowatt is 2nd in east Asia, after Japan. Most of
> that cost is due to ineffiency in power generation, and a lot of lost
power
> through antiquated systems. So, for a filipino to go "solar power", the
> cost for even the small fraction of wattage used compared to America, the
> cost for set up would still be in the $2,000 - $4,000 range. Entirely
> prohibitive for the majority of the population here. If pricing were to
> drop dramatically however, which could happen under competitive
conditions,
> then it COULD become feasible and a viable alternative.

I don't see solar as a net win for many many years to come, likely
decades. Now, fuel cells, however, that is the next technology I see for
electric grid deployment. It can be done per-unit, be it house or
commercial building, or even apartments.

In fact, most people have not realized the synergistic effect of fuel
cells and ethanol. Most currently proposed fuel cell hybrids use
gasoline as the fuel. Dirty, large, inefficient and expensive.

However, an Ethanol powered fuel cell delivers good power generation
chemically (no combustion) and as such it outputs H20. Gee what ashame.
;)

In fact, current projections for an Ethanol fuel cell powered car is ~81
MPG --of ethanol a renewable cheap fuel.

> I want to point out too, that such systems are not something that power
> companies might find useful or attractive in their current state. 12VDC is
> not cost effective, before that is, it is converted to 120VAC or higher.
> Transmission of 12VDC loses a lot of power over very short distances in
> transmission. The technology is more suited for individual structures,
such
> as homes, or office buildings, than for commercial power generation and
> distribution to a community.

Another reason I love it. Decentralizing the power grid. What could be
more libertarian. ;) Seriously though, the more decentralized these
things are, the less likelihood of a monopoly, and the more secure we
are from "terrorist" attacks. It is a good trend. After the rolling
blackouts in CA, I understand *many* places are looking at local power
generation -- as in per building. A rooftop could be covered in solar
generation, combined with fuel cell power generation (powered by
Ethanol) to provide 80-100+% of the power a building needs, depending on
it's size.

It should provide to be quite economical when considered as a complete
system. depending on the costs to convert from Ethanol to power, a
building could in theory generate at full load (or 80%) overnight, and
sell the resulting surplus to the power grid; recouping costs.

Anyway, IMO, it holds a *lot* of promise, and I suspect will not be able
to be quashed by the PetroCos of the world. The technology is to easy,
to well known, and does not bear the costs that come with petro
production. It is also one big positive feedback loop for much of it's
growth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:50:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > It is not uncommon anymore to see modules producing 6-8 amps of power at
> > 12VDC, where before the average array only produced about half that
much.
> > Also, because they have become smaller, they require far less space to
mount
> > on smaller homes and lot sizes, even condomeniums where size is often
> > restrictive.

You replied:
> The way to get the most out of solar is to convert as much as possible
> to DC as opposed to AC. Too much is lost in the conversion form DC
> (produced by solar) to AC (standard housing power). I've looked a lot at
> the "off-grid" houses, and they've made substantial progress, though
> still too expensive for Joe Sixpack (even Joe AverageDoctor/Lawyer).

I don't think that they are. I'm not the "AverageDoctor/Lawyer", and
it works for me. It is NOT practical in most cases to assume a
majority of dependence upon 12VDC, although it that could happen, it
would be nice. In reality, small things demand the use of conversion
to 120VAC. These small things keep the inverter turned on to supply
those necessities. The inverter itself takes power to convert such
energy from DC to AC, so in all likelihood, the inverter will be
working anyway, even when using DC energy.

So, find an inverter that is less a costly drain upon DC, such as
Trace inverters which in idle mode have a negligible drain, and even
when supplying direct AC, the loss of power is also minimal. Some
inverters are ridiculously expensive in terms of loss of power, but
Trace and others have made substantial advances in eliminating much of
that amperage drain. You can also manually adjust Trace Inverters to
the minimum pull to spring them from idle mode to full power mode.
Inverters no medium for this. They either supply AC or they choose not
to, depending upon the setting you initiate. So, if a freezer or
refrigerator kick in, the inverter shifts to deliver AC. If a 5-watt
light bulb is turned on, it might not be of sufficient amperage to
kick on the inverter. The key is to configure your home to 12VDC
lighting, and only keep necessary appliances running the triggering
process for the AC inverter to switch on.

RE: Airline restructuring, you wrote:
> IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
> carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
> is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
> you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
> ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
> planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
> mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
> maintenance cost savings).

I own stock in Delta, Continental, Northwest, United and American. All
of these airlines are addressing the issue of competing with the
smaller discount (economy) airlines EXCEPT American which is doing
next to nothing in that regard. American is holding out in dealing
with the labour unions, believing that United and US Airways will go
titts up and be broken up in the bankruptcy courts. This of course,
doesn't address the fundamental issue of labour costs exceeding 50%
more than the economy airlines have to pay. In other words, while
United and others have reached concessions for labour reductions,
American by and large is only operating on the basis of $2 billion in
available cash which is being depleted rapidly in operational
expenses. Not a rosy picture.

Believe it or not, United seems to be more forward looking than most
of the rest. If they can survive bankruptcy, they are looking at
purchasing a fleet of much smaller capacity and fuel efficient
aircraft in a new "company" under the parent company to compete head
to head with the economy carriers. If such restructuring is permitted
to go forward, a huge percentage of United's schedule will be diverted
to the newer, more efficient company. Both Continental and Delta are
also slowly working into this restructuring process.

> Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
> angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
> than jumbos.

I agree completely. Which is why American Airlines, which got hit
pretty hard in 9/11, and is itself looking at probably filing Chapter
11 status in the next 12 months, ought to now start looking into
spinning off a subsidiary "low cost" economy carrier of its own. This
is the world's largest airline, and they still seem to be counting on
the current status quo to somehow prevail. Again, the ONLY thing
right now, keeping them out of filing Chapter 11, is the $2 billion is
liquid cash (all liabilities) that they currently have on hand.

> One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.

You got that right. Several of the airlines are trying to work out
routing whereby not to waste their resources competing on non
profitable routes. So far, the SEC and other Federal agencies are
crying foul! If left alone, in most cases anyway, the airlines could
most likely work out such compromises amongst themselves, outside of
any government intervention at all.

I previously wrote:
> It is practical right now for the average size home to
> > have its electrical requirements produced mostly by solar power now (in
most
> > areas of the US) for around $10,000. That requires a lot of
modifications to
> > such things as lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and cooking
devices.

And, you replied:
> Yes, it does. Nearly a wholesale change of the wiring and devices.
> Doable, though.

Well, in my home in Idaho, I have several two electrical boxes
available in every room. One with brown panels that accept 12VDC, and
white panels that are fitted to 120VAC. It's easy to do that with a
new home, when such plans are already fitted into the blueprints. It
is far more difficult to retrofit a used house that is designed around
the use of 120VAC. That gets both messy, and expensive. The white
panelled boxes are directly from the AC inverter, and the brown ones
directly from the DC battery source.

In automobile fuel restructuring, you wrote:
> Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
> stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
> rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
> remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
> make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
> availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
> already here in Boise. :)

I believe it is possible, that is, for the standard to be made on the
basis for a free market choice by consumers. I only had the problem
with YOU mandating that the government enter this picture by defining
standards for "government" vehicles. But I also have a problem with
the petroleum industry monopolizing such standards, as such. They are
just as big a liability to free markets (particularly when they are
working in tandem with government regulation) as the government is
itself.

Let me just regress for a moment here. If BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
and other corporate energy producers can monopolize the solar power
market, as they are now trying to do, then they still make a free
market solution to electrical energy largely dependent upon their own
goals -- which will always be "petroleum"! They will artificially
keep such alternative energy prices VERY HIGH to protect their main
strategy of selling petroleum or fossil fuel products!

If you doubt what I am saying, check out the ownership over WHO has
bought up the production of solar voltic companies just in the last
five years! There are still some independent companies that are out
there, but they are striking in terms of corporate mergers and
buyouts, mainly because the technology is threatening their
(petroleum) interests. It's interesting to watch this shit happen.

Actually, solar electric technology isn't that new. On the bright
side, emerging markets in China, Japan, and Taiwan may really throw a
wrench into this mix, and actually make solar electric power very
price competitive with existing electrical generation.

> The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
> been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
> trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
> monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
> when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
> than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
> terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)

You'll have to explain this more to me. I've been gone far too long as
it is, and I don't honestly know what is being shown on the show room
floors these days from Ford or GM. I own Ford, but not GM. I've
always been a Ford man.

> My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
> basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
> be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
> the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
> to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
> midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
> success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".

I see your point, as such. But I don't understand the technology at
all. Point conceded. What will be the trade off, if any, in the cost
per vehicle?

> Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
> produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
> progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
> large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
> landfill uh .. filling.

Sounds exciting. To get the corporate producers of vehicles to sign
on, will take some doing however, no doubt. To reconfigure a
production line along such rapid changes, would require some basis for
a profit, or payoff in the end. I've followed Ford's exploratory
vehicles to a point, but they have also lost ground in such places as
Norway, which refused to give Ford tax-exempt status for the
production of such vehicles. Of course, Norway is a oil producing
nation. This has GOT to be a fundamental question, e.g.: Are the
interests of corporate petroleum producers of such a nature that
prohibit the economical benefits to consumers from choosing
alternative and more cost effective trade-offs to current technology?
Can and do such interests affect the nature of what governments
ultimately decide to do?

I only use Ford as an example here, because as I said, I've always
been a "Ford man". I haven't seen any innovative strategies from GM
and haven't seen any of them for four decades, since the time I was
old enough to take notice. Ford has always been the automotive
innovator in both design and technology.

I can't believe I am using Liberty Northwest as a free advertisement
for the Ford Motor Company! Sorry, everyone!

However, look back a few decades. Who produced the first American
Sports Car? The Ford Thunderbird (1955), or the GM reaction (1956),
the Corvette?

I love this! This really gets my mind off politics for a while!

Who, produced the FIRST midsized automobile? The Ford Fairlane
(1962), or the GM's reactionary version with the Chevelle (1963).

And, what about economy models? Ford's Falcon (1960) and GM's
reactionary response with the "Corvere" (sp) or whatever it's spelling
is.

What about Ford's introduction of the Mustang (1965). The first
innovative sports car "family version" vehicle opening a broad new
market. GM's version, again a year later, the Camero, (1966).

What has GM ever innovated in the last four decades? They were on the
brink of bankruptcy during the 1980s, losing billions of dollars. Ford
wasn't doing so bad, with introductions of the Sable, Grenada, and
entering the SUV market well ahead of GM or Chrysler's wildest
imaginations!

So, why am I a Ford man, you ask? I have no clue. I just believe they
will get out of this current stinking mess before any other US
automaker can come up with the technological and design answers.

[Frank reverts to a more objective position...]

> Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
> reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)
> Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
> called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
> and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
> options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
> and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
> working to get caught up).

Why am I not surprised.

> We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
> McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
> cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
> resource too. :)

Yea, you right. I do have to come back and see some of this. I might
not be all that happy either in what I see, discounting the smell from
burgers from tailpipe emissions. Got to believe that Ford is likely on
top of this new technology however. I've got my money riding on it
nevertheless.

> I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
> fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
> cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
> as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
> sold at half off, you can by twice as much.

Perhaps. But not always the case. When economic concerns are in place,
people want to drive between A-Z. What is the most economical way to
arrive at such a destination? Many Americans are less concerned with
such choices, and frankly, don't care. I've noticed that the latest
models don't care either. Since GM's Geo Metro (about 54 mpg), such
options have largely disappeared in recent years. The Metro is gone,
so as the Chevrolet Sprint, which also enjoyed mpg figures in the 50
mpg range.

Admittedly, both Ford and Chrysler did not pursue the mpg issue as
aggressively as GM once did. It does appear however that even GM has
thrown in the towel on that as well. When you que in on mpg on a
search engine to find the best mpg available in standard internal
combustion engines, the best you can come up with days is the low
40's.

I haven't been able to find one single automobile, marketed in the US,
using standard internal combustion technology that gets very far ahead
of 40 mpg. I do know, that in Japan, several models are still
available manufactured by Suzukki, owned in large part by GM. However,
the absence of such vehicles in America seems to suggest that there is
no market for fuel economy per se. The Geo Metro is gone. The Chevy
Sprint is gone, and with that, fuel economy as an issue has largely
disappeared.

This says a lot, to me at least, as far as American's concerned over
energy consumption is a basic issue at all.

> I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
> base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
> highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.

I do. Russia's reserves haven't even been quantified yet. We simply
have little scientific information that would suggest that Russia
isn't sitting on the highest petroleum reserves on the entire plant.
Russia will be a key player in energy, and WILL surpass Saudi Arabia's
capacity by the year 2005, or perhaps much sooner than even that.

This is also true of the north slope of Alaska! Which was largely
locked up by the former Bush Administration. This is also pure bull
shit, and I can't believe any American would support this dependence
upon imported oil! This includes, the same Bush Administration locking
up exploration and production of petroleum on the west coast
continental shelf! I have read and heard of the impact that the
colossal resources on the North Slope in Alaska even exceeds that of
Saudi Arabia.

So, your figures don't match, Bill. If Russia has substantial
petroleum reserves that exceed Saudi Arabia, and the Alaskan North
Slope exceeds the capacity of Saudi Arabia, then why? I ask, is
mid-east oil such a "burning concern" (no pun intended)?

Anyway, even if the echo-frecks get their way, and global warming is
really talking place, then Russia will be the chief beneficiary of
that trend, since Siberia will also warm up, and create thereby a new
tremendous resource for the planet in terms of such things as
agriculture, and growth in forest products as such! I don't see any
dooms day scenario hanging over the planet in such cases.

> I don't see solar as a net win for many many years to come, likely
> decades. Now, fuel cells, however, that is the next technology I see for
> electric grid deployment. It can be done per-unit, be it house or
> commercial building, or even apartments.

Solar power is already here, and as I've already stated, is
achievable. The cost of homes is currently around $80k. So, a $10,000
investment in alternative solar power is already an option for each
and every homebuilder, and home buyer.

Problem is, that few, precious choices are made in the market place
today. Mostly because of government building codes, and regulations.

I'm sending this now. Getting late here. Please do get back with me on
this.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Anannaki?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:39:14 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Frank M. Reichert <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:49 PM
Subject: Anannaki?

> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Dan Gookin...
>
> Dan Gookin wrote:
> > > What do I think? OH SHIT! Is what I think. We are in trouble and it's
> > > gonna take the Ananaki to either kill us all off or get us out of it.
>
> You replied:
> > HEY! Leave the Anannaki out of this! They are a peaceful, freedom loving
> > people!
>
> And who, for those of us who don't have a clue, are the Anannaki people?
> Either you, or Dan, might likely enlighten me and others who might have
some
> questions as to what this is all about. Suppose I could look it up myself
on
> a search engine, but this does seem to be off the wall.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Senate vote on Total Information Awareness program
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:18:26 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: January 24, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Libertarians applaud Senate vote to strip funding
for Total Information Awareness system

WASHINGTON, DC -- A vote by the Senate on Thursday to block funding
for
the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program is a victory for
ordinary Americans and a setback for the surveillance state,
Libertarians say.

"Score one for Americans' privacy and freedom," said Geoffrey Neale,
national chair of the Libertarian Party. "Now that politicians have
been put on the defensive over this un-American spy scheme, it's time
to step up the pressure and bury it once and for all."

A proposal by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, to halt funding for the Total
Information Awareness (TIA) project passed the Senate by voice vote on
Thursday. The massive public surveillance system – spearheaded by
former Navy Rear Adm. John Poindexter – has come under scathing attack
by civil liberties groups and editorial pages around the country since
it was unveiled last year.

TIA would create a centralized database of every American's electronic
transactions, such as credit card purchases, bank transactions, travel
data, drivers license information, educational and health records, e-
mails and phone calls. Eventually that information would be linked
with
biometric data such as face recognition technology and digital
fingerprints, and provided instantly to law enforcement to detect
patterns of terrorist activity, the government says.

"TIA is the electronic equivalent of ordering a 24-hour police
stakeout on every American, even though they're not suspected of doing
anything wrong," Neale said. "This is the kind of behavior that we
expect from dictatorships, not democracies."

Thursday's vote indicates the government is reacting to the outcry
from
Libertarians and others who have been lobbying against TIA, Neale
said.

"In November, the Libertarian Party joined an emergency coalition of
more than 30 organizations to try to scuttle the project," he noted.
"We signed a letter drafted by the Electronic Privacy Information
Center that urged the Senate to adopt an amendment to the Homeland
Security Act that would have halted the program.

"Unfortunately, the Senate ignored us, and Bush signed the bill into
law on Nov. 25. Obviously the public's continued input has changed
some
minds on Capitol Hill, so now it's time to put the pressure on."

The Senate's action is only a partial victory, Neale noted.

"Because the measure was tacked onto a Senate spending bill, it must
survive a House-Senate conference committee and a final vote in both
houses before being presented to President Bush," he said.

"Wyden's proposal also contains a lot of fine print. For example,
instead of killing TIA outright, it requires the Pentagon to issue a
report explaining the program and assessing its impact on civil
liberties. And it could still be deployed in cases involving 'national
security,' which was the excuse for creating this monstrosity in the
first place.

"But this domestic surveillance system can't be reformed; it must be
removed, period. And we won't rest until that happens."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of
2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:25:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com

Greetings everyone!

Ron Wittig just published this on another list. This issue is and will be a
hot one. I am sending this out html format since it might lose its appeal
otherwise.

Kindest regards,
Frank
Are you ready for this.Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Wanda Benton
To: PRC DigestSent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:43 AMSubject: RED FLAG RED
FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in
House)

-----Original Message-----
From: Barb Hall
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:47 PM

I think we need to jump on this one. Get this stopped
NOW. (Barbara)

Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in
House)

HR 124 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session


H. R. 124

To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of
handguns.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003
Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A BILL

To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of
handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing and Registration
Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM TO APPLY
IN ANY STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HANDGUN LICENSING AND
REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 931. Licensing and registration of handguns

`(a)(1) The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for
the licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed,
or controlled in the United States, which shall include a method
for easily retrieving information sufficient to identify--

`(A) each resident of a State to which this subsection applies who
owns, possesses, or controls a handgun; and

`(B) the handgun.

`(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to own, possess, or control
a handgun in a State to which this subsection applies unless the
person--

`(A) is licensed to do so by the system established pursuant to
paragraph (1); and

`(B) has registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agency.

`(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in a State if there is in
effect a certification by the Attorney General that the State has
in effect a system for the licensing and registration of handguns
owned, possessed, or controlled in the State that--

`(1) includes a method for easily retrieving information
sufficient to identify--

`(A) each resident of the State who owns, possesses, or controls a
handgun in the State; and

`(B) the handgun; and

`(2) at a minimum, imposes criminal penalties on any person who
owns, possesses, or controls a handgun in the State, and who--

`(i) has not completed training in firearms safety;

`(ii) is not licensed by the State to possess a handgun; or

`(iii) has not registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agency.

`(c) A certification under subsection (b) with respect to a State
shall have no force or effect on or after the date the Attorney
General finds, after an opportunity for a hearing on the record,
that the State does not have in effect the system described in
subsection (b).

`(d) The Attorney General shall prescribe such regulations as may
be necessary to carry out this section.'.

(b) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following:

`(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931(a)(2) shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not less than 15 years, or both. The
court shall not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed under
this paragraph or impose a probationary sentence under this
paragraph.'.

(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
amended by adding at the end the following:

`931. Licensing and registration of handguns.'.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall
apply to conduct engaged in after the 2-year period that begins
with the date of the enactment of this Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and
Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:32:12 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Probably the same as one that was introduced in the last congress and the
one before, and the one before that, and ....

My guess? It goes to a committee and basically disappears. I wouldn't
worry too much unless the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert. They
generally have people "on the ground," so to speak, who know and talk to
the people who run things. Generally, the "leadership" people know that
something like this would practically get them lynched by the membership if
it appeared on the floor because the membership would get swamped with
calls when that happened. So the best thing for them to do is say it needs
to go through half a dozen committees starting with the committee with the
most pro-gun chairman. My guess is that after it hits the first committee,
it never even gets scheduled for hearings.

More likely is one to extend the "Assault Weapons" ban that's due to expire
this year (or is it next year?) That one actually has a chance and if it
gets out of the House, I'd say odds are about 70% that it'll pass the
Senate. Then, we've got a Pres. who's promised to sign it. Like it or
not, I can't see him breaking that promise.

Lowell
At 14:25 01/25/03 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings everyone!
>
>Ron Wittig just published this on another list. This issue is and will be
>a hot one. I am sending this out html format since it might lose its
>appeal otherwise.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
> Are you ready for this.Ron
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:wlbenton@salemnet.com>Wanda Benton
>To: <mailto:prc-digest@freedom.org>PRC DigestSent: Thursday, January 23,
>2003 7:43 AMSubject: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and
>Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Barb Hall
>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:47 PM
>
>
>
> I think we need to jump on this one. Get this stopped
> NOW. (Barbara)
>Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>HR 124 IH
>
>
>108th CONGRESS
>
>1st Session
>
>
>
>H. R. 124
>To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.
>
>
>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>
>
>
>January 7, 2003
>Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
>Committee on the Judiciary
>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>A BILL
>To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.
>
>
>Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
>States of America in Congress assembled,
>
>SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
>
>This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of
>2003'.
>
>SEC. 2. FEDERAL HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM TO APPLY IN ANY
>STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT
>MEETS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
>
>(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
>adding at the end the following:
>
>`Sec. 931. Licensing and registration of handguns
>
>`(a)(1) The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for the
>licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed, or controlled
>in the United States, which shall include a method for easily retrieving
>information sufficient to identify--
>
>`(A) each resident of a State to which this subsection applies who owns,
>possesses, or controls a handgun; and
>
>`(B) the handgun.
>
>`(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to own, possess, or control a
>handgun in a State to which this subsection applies unless the person--
>
>`(A) is licensed to do so by the system established pursuant to paragraph
>(1); and
>
>`(B) has registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law
>enforcement agency.
>
>`(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in a State if there is in effect a
>certification by the Attorney General that the State has in effect a
>system for the licensing and registration of handguns owned, possessed, or
>controlled in the State that--
>
>`(1) includes a method for easily retrieving information sufficient to
>identify--
>
>`(A) each resident of the State who owns, possesses, or controls a handgun
>in the State; and
>
>`(B) the handgun; and
>
>`(2) at a minimum, imposes criminal penalties on any person who owns,
>possesses, or controls a handgun in the State, and who--
>
>`(i) has not completed training in firearms safety;
>`(ii) is not licensed by the State to possess a handgun; or
>
>`(iii) has not registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law
>enforcement agency.
>
>`(c) A certification under subsection (b) with respect to a State shall
>have no force or effect on or after the date the Attorney General finds,
>after an opportunity for a hearing on the record, that the State does not
>have in effect the system described in subsection (b).
>
>`(d) The Attorney General shall prescribe such regulations as may be
>necessary to carry out this section.'.
>
>(b) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the
>end the following:
>
>`(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931(a)(2) shall be fined under
>this title, imprisoned not less than 15 years, or both. The court shall
>not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph or
>impose a probationary sentence under this paragraph.'.
>
>(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is amended
>by adding at the end the following:
>
>`931. Licensing and registration of handguns.'.
>
>(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall apply to
>conduct engaged in after the 2-year period that begins with the date of
>the enactment of this Act.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER To subscribe:
>libnw-subscribe@immosys.com To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com Admin matters:
>moderator@liberty-northwest.org URLs for Liberty Northwest: Archives and
>Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw Liberty Northwest Main
>Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 20:25:58 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage wrote in response to Frank Reichert's repost on handgun
registration....

> Probably the same as one that was introduced in the last congress and the
> one before, and the one before that, and ....

Don't bet on it, this time.

> My guess? It goes to a committee and basically disappears. I wouldn't
> worry too much unless the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert. They
> generally have people "on the ground," so to speak, who know and talk to
> the people who run things. Generally, the "leadership" people know that
> something like this would practically get them lynched by the membership
if
> it appeared on the floor because the membership would get swamped with
> calls when that happened.

Maybe you missed it. But the legislation was sent directly to the "Judiciary
Committee". Maybe you are right, but odds are they will rule on it in some
way, before reviews are taken up by other committees. My guess is, as I
wrote last time, that some compromise might get into this sordid mess and
we'll still loose ground. The idea here is to make "handguns" a particular
issue of concern. If this bill is successful, guess what? Other weapons,
such as semi-automatic rifles might very well be next, and the list goes on.
This kind of reminds me of the "assault rifle" hysteria of recent history,
limiting clip sizes and capacities. As I said, this kind of legislation is
scary, since it often gets watered down in Committee. In the end, a
so-called "reluctant" President might sign this into law in a lower form
than it currently exists.

> So the best thing for them to do is say it needs
> to go through half a dozen committees starting with the committee with the
> most pro-gun chairman.

My best guess is they probably won't politically pull it off. First the GOP
doesn't hold that much of an edge on this issue, and many so-called moderate
GOP legislators who cry foul if that were to occur. This issue here has been
carefully selected by the anti-gun lobby, and the issue is "handguns". No,
I am not trying to suggest that this bill will make it through the hoops in
its present form, but there is a danger that it might somehow become
"respectable" enough to be considered, water down somewhat, and still make
"handguns" an issue for special treatment. Most of the guns I own are
handguns for example. I am not certain, but my gut instinct tells me most
gun owners likely have more handguns than rifles or shotguns. So this could
potentially become a real gun-regulator's best dream.

What we'll probably hear, is something along the lines, that cooler heads
are present and want to defend gun owner's rights in some fashion to keep
their handguns. Here is usually where the compromisers come in with the
concessions and deails on how that can happen. At stake however is the
Constitutional protection over the right to keep and bear arms, WITHOUT
regulation or restriction! Handguns are being singled out today -- tomorrow
we'll revisit the "assault rifles" again, and next time semi-automatic
rifles mostly used for hunting by the way.

> My guess is that after it hits the first committee,
> it never even gets scheduled for hearings.

Nice guess. Good luck!

> More likely is one to extend the "Assault Weapons" ban that's due to
expire
> this year (or is it next year?) That one actually has a chance and if it
> gets out of the House, I'd say odds are about 70% that it'll pass the
> Senate. Then, we've got a Pres. who's promised to sign it. Like it or
> not, I can't see him breaking that promise.

Linkage in this case to assault rifles doesn't seem to be practical. The
target here, no pun intended, is against all types of hand held firearms. I
know that the way this is presented is all or nothing. That's the way
politics works in the first round (again no pun intended). You give it your
best shot by calling for the mandatory registration of all handguns, and
then work it out in "committee" to make some ground. That's the way this all
works. That's the problem Lowell, separating the type of weapons
individuals are allowed to keep, without registering them. The end result,
believe me, is the registration of ALL firearms. This is the same type of
argument that won out on the nefarious "Assault Rife" thing only a few years
ago. Hell, a single shot 22 calibre rifle can become an assault rifle
depending upon its use.

To go back further, weapons aren't the motivators or reason for crime.
People are. A rock, a knife, or a hunk of broken glass, or a baseball bat
can become an assault weapon. But right now we have certain legislators who
are signing on as if hand guns (or most basic weapon for defence) is the
motivator and perpetrator for such crimes.

It will indeed be interesting to watch how this Congress chooses to handle
this peice of proposed legislation, and where it goes, and what the
Administration's public take on it really might turn out to be.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing and
Registration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:30:02 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

The "assault weapons ban" which includes the normal-size magazine ban
(above 10 rounds) is due to sunset either late this year or early next
year. If nothing is done, that law will soon be history. If that law is
going to continue, it must be passed as a new law. The fact that it has
been law for almost 10 years will give some "oomph" to the push to pass the
new law. Of course, if it gets to the floor, it will be tough to keep the
congresscritters from voting on things like making it permanent and adding
stuff to get rid of the "loopholes" of various kinds (that is, "loopholes"
as defined by the hoplophobes). President Bush promised during the
campaign that he would sign legislation renewing this law. Since we don't
even know if his veto pen works, it's almost a sure bet that if legislation
renewing an AW ban reaches his desk, he'll sign it. I don't know if such a
bill has even been filed yet. But regardless, you can bet that if it
isn't passed, it will be a victory for the gun rights crowd and a defeat
for the Brady Campaign (or whatever they're calling themselves today). So
this will be the tough fight.

Now, regarding a handgun registration law (like HR 124). There may be a
RINO or two that will sign on to this. But there are a lot of Democrats
who ran as pro-gunners. Some of them may even tell their leadership that
if this thing gets identified with the Democratic party, they are going to
have to bolt the party because their constituents will lynch them
(figuratively speaking, of course) if they don't. I've never heard of "Mr.
Holt". My guess is that he's from MD, NJ or some other real
liberal/socialist place and so he's introduced this thing so he can go back
to his constituents and say "See? I drafted this neato handgun
registration law! But the big bad meany Republicans refused to let it see
the light of day!"

Like I said, when the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert saying that there's
a hearing scheduled on it or some other action, then I'll start to
worry. Until then, I've got bigger fish to fry.

Lowell
At 20:25 01/25/03 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>Lowell Savage wrote in response to Frank Reichert's repost on handgun
>registration....
>
> > Probably the same as one that was introduced in the last congress and
the
> > one before, and the one before that, and ....
>
>Don't bet on it, this time.
>
> > My guess? It goes to a committee and basically disappears. I wouldn't
> > worry too much unless the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert. They
> > generally have people "on the ground," so to speak, who know and talk to
> > the people who run things. Generally, the "leadership" people know that
> > something like this would practically get them lynched by the membership
>if
> > it appeared on the floor because the membership would get swamped with
> > calls when that happened.
>
>Maybe you missed it. But the legislation was sent directly to the
"Judiciary
>Committee". Maybe you are right, but odds are they will rule on it in some
>way, before reviews are taken up by other committees. My guess is, as I
>wrote last time, that some compromise might get into this sordid mess and
>we'll still loose ground. The idea here is to make "handguns" a particular
>issue of concern. If this bill is successful, guess what? Other weapons,
>such as semi-automatic rifles might very well be next, and the list goes
on.
>This kind of reminds me of the "assault rifle" hysteria of recent history,
>limiting clip sizes and capacities. As I said, this kind of legislation is
>scary, since it often gets watered down in Committee. In the end, a
>so-called "reluctant" President might sign this into law in a lower form
>than it currently exists.
>
> > So the best thing for them to do is say it needs
> > to go through half a dozen committees starting with the committee with
the
> > most pro-gun chairman.
>
>My best guess is they probably won't politically pull it off. First the GOP
>doesn't hold that much of an edge on this issue, and many so-called
moderate
>GOP legislators who cry foul if that were to occur. This issue here has
been
>carefully selected by the anti-gun lobby, and the issue is "handguns". No,
>I am not trying to suggest that this bill will make it through the hoops in
>its present form, but there is a danger that it might somehow become
>"respectable" enough to be considered, water down somewhat, and still make
>"handguns" an issue for special treatment. Most of the guns I own are
>handguns for example. I am not certain, but my gut instinct tells me most
>gun owners likely have more handguns than rifles or shotguns. So this
could
>potentially become a real gun-regulator's best dream.
>
>What we'll probably hear, is something along the lines, that cooler heads
>are present and want to defend gun owner's rights in some fashion to keep
>their handguns. Here is usually where the compromisers come in with the
>concessions and deails on how that can happen. At stake however is the
>Constitutional protection over the right to keep and bear arms, WITHOUT
>regulation or restriction! Handguns are being singled out today -- tomorrow
>we'll revisit the "assault rifles" again, and next time semi-automatic
>rifles mostly used for hunting by the way.
>
> > My guess is that after it hits the first committee,
> > it never even gets scheduled for hearings.
>
>Nice guess. Good luck!
>
> > More likely is one to extend the "Assault Weapons" ban that's due to
>expire
> > this year (or is it next year?) That one actually has a chance and if
it
> > gets out of the House, I'd say odds are about 70% that it'll pass the
> > Senate. Then, we've got a Pres. who's promised to sign it. Like it or
> > not, I can't see him breaking that promise.
>
>Linkage in this case to assault rifles doesn't seem to be practical. The
>target here, no pun intended, is against all types of hand held firearms. I
>know that the way this is presented is all or nothing. That's the way
>politics works in the first round (again no pun intended). You give it your
>best shot by calling for the mandatory registration of all handguns, and
>then work it out in "committee" to make some ground. That's the way this
all
>works. That's the problem Lowell, separating the type of weapons
>individuals are allowed to keep, without registering them. The end result,
>believe me, is the registration of ALL firearms. This is the same type of
>argument that won out on the nefarious "Assault Rife" thing only a few
years
>ago. Hell, a single shot 22 calibre rifle can become an assault rifle
>depending upon its use.
>
>To go back further, weapons aren't the motivators or reason for crime.
>People are. A rock, a knife, or a hunk of broken glass, or a baseball bat
>can become an assault weapon. But right now we have certain legislators who
>are signing on as if hand guns (or most basic weapon for defence) is the
>motivator and perpetrator for such crimes.
>
>It will indeed be interesting to watch how this Congress chooses to handle
>this peice of proposed legislation, and where it goes, and what the
>Administration's public take on it really might turn out to be.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing andRegistration Act
of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:24:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> The "assault weapons ban" which includes the normal-size magazine ban
> (above 10 rounds) is due to sunset either late this year or early next
> year.

Great! Then some of us will no longer be criminals, facing fail terms
and incarceration. That's the good news.

> If nothing is done, that law will soon be history. If that law is
> going to continue, it must be passed as a new law. The fact that it has
> been law for almost 10 years will give some "oomph" to the push to pass
the
> new law. Of course, if it gets to the floor, it will be tough to keep the
> congresscritters from voting on things like making it permanent and adding
> stuff to get rid of the "loopholes" of various kinds (that is, "loopholes"
> as defined by the hoplophobes). President Bush promised during the
> campaign that he would sign legislation renewing this law. Since we don't
> even know if his veto pen works, it's almost a sure bet that if
legislation
> renewing an AW ban reaches his desk, he'll sign it.

So, we're still all criminals, awaiting incarceration (if caught and
prosecuted)? I fail to see your point as to how the current assault on
handguns is really a "plus factor" in preserving our Second Amendment
rights.

> Now, regarding a handgun registration law (like HR 124). There may be a
> RINO or two that will sign on to this. But there are a lot of Democrats
> who ran as pro-gunners.

I disagree, that overall, there are a lot. Unless they represent
people in such states as Idaho, Montana, and several others. The one
that comes to mind was the slimy Larry LaRocco, the Democrat who was
appointed by Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus and later confirmed for
re-election by Idaho voters. That was a long time ago. But he too was
eventually defeated, and replaced by congresswoman Helen Chenoweth.
There are still a great number of these Cretans out there.

> Some of them may even tell their leadership that
> if this thing gets identified with the Democratic party, they are going to
> have to bolt the party because their constituents will lynch them
> (figuratively speaking, of course) if they don't.

Well, few and far in number, unfortunately. Almost non-existent today.
At least in Idaho, that number may have been captured by the Democrats
by signing on as Republicans. Same thing that occurred during the
so-called Reagan revolution!

[Some snips here...]
> I've never heard of "Mr.
> Holt"... But the big bad meany Republicans refused to let it see
> the light of day!"

That'll be the day! This Administration is trying very hard to be the
"politics as usual crowd", and vying with the Democrats for that
distinction.

> Like I said, when the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert saying that
there's
> a hearing scheduled on it or some other action, then I'll start to
> worry. Until then, I've got bigger fish to fry.

They likely will, in due course. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to
watch where this all goes.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RED FLAG RED FLAG!!! HR 124 Handgun Licensing
andRegistration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:36:44 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!

Frank. You've totally missed my point. My point is that this HR 124
Handgun Licensing and Registration Act is probably little more than the
political equivalent of a feint. It's probably going to get bottled up in
the Judiciary Committee (where it is now). If anything serious starts to
come of it, I expect that we'll suddenly get alerts from the folks at the
NRA and the GOA. If that happens, then, absolutely flood your
Congresscritter with mail, email, and phone calls. Until then, it probably
isn't really worth spending energy on. The sucker punch to watch out for
is the renewal of the AW ban (which we haven't seen, yet, as far as I
know). But it's coming. And since it will "simply be an extension of what
is currently the law", it will be claimed to "oh, so reasonable, and
moderate and bi-partisan and fair and ...."

What I'm afraid of is that everyone gets all excited about this HR 124
(which is going nowhere) and then when the AW ban renewal comes along,
everyone's too burned out to do anything about it. There are democrats
from places like Colorado, Tennessee, Texas, and so on who ran campaigns as
"pro-gunners". Some of them even got "A"s and "B"s from the NRA and even
from the GOA. The only way they might want this thing on the floor of the
House is so they can vote against it to give them cover to vote for the AW
ban renewal. But if HR 124 passes and is strongly identified with the
Democrats, they will be toast in their districts--even if they voted
against it.

The rest of my discussion below about the chances of the AW ban passing
could be summarized as follows: if we're going stop it, we'll have to stop
it in the House. I don't like saying that. But it's the truth.

Lowell
At 21:24 01/26/03 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > The "assault weapons ban" which includes the normal-size magazine ban
> > (above 10 rounds) is due to sunset either late this year or early next
> > year.
>
>Great! Then some of us will no longer be criminals, facing fail terms
>and incarceration. That's the good news.
>
> > If nothing is done, that law will soon be history. If that law is
> > going to continue, it must be passed as a new law. The fact that it has
> > been law for almost 10 years will give some "oomph" to the push to pass
the
> > new law. Of course, if it gets to the floor, it will be tough to keep
the
> > congresscritters from voting on things like making it permanent and
adding
> > stuff to get rid of the "loopholes" of various kinds (that is,
"loopholes"
> > as defined by the hoplophobes). President Bush promised during the
> > campaign that he would sign legislation renewing this law. Since we
don't
> > even know if his veto pen works, it's almost a sure bet that if
legislation
> > renewing an AW ban reaches his desk, he'll sign it.
>
>So, we're still all criminals, awaiting incarceration (if caught and
>prosecuted)? I fail to see your point as to how the current assault on
>handguns is really a "plus factor" in preserving our Second Amendment
>rights.
>
> > Now, regarding a handgun registration law (like HR 124). There may be a
> > RINO or two that will sign on to this. But there are a lot of Democrats
> > who ran as pro-gunners.
>
>I disagree, that overall, there are a lot. Unless they represent
>people in such states as Idaho, Montana, and several others. The one
>that comes to mind was the slimy Larry LaRocco, the Democrat who was
>appointed by Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus and later confirmed for
>re-election by Idaho voters. That was a long time ago. But he too was
>eventually defeated, and replaced by congresswoman Helen Chenoweth.
>There are still a great number of these Cretans out there.
>
> > Some of them may even tell their leadership that
> > if this thing gets identified with the Democratic party, they are going
to
> > have to bolt the party because their constituents will lynch them
> > (figuratively speaking, of course) if they don't.
>
>Well, few and far in number, unfortunately. Almost non-existent today.
>At least in Idaho, that number may have been captured by the Democrats
>by signing on as Republicans. Same thing that occurred during the
>so-called Reagan revolution!
>
>[Some snips here...]
> > I've never heard of "Mr.
> > Holt"... But the big bad meany Republicans refused to let it see
> > the light of day!"
>
>That'll be the day! This Administration is trying very hard to be the
>"politics as usual crowd", and vying with the Democrats for that
>distinction.
>
> > Like I said, when the NRA or the GOA sends out an alert saying that
there's
> > a hearing scheduled on it or some other action, then I'll start to
> > worry. Until then, I've got bigger fish to fry.
>
>They likely will, in due course. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to
>watch where this all goes.
>
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:16:34 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
CC: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

[Image]

Greetings again Ron!

Excellent resolution, Ron. I encourage everyone to pass this one on to
friends, family, acquaintances and anyone else you may know. It is probably
best to leave it in html format for greatest impact. Thanks Ron!

Kindest regards,
Frank

Ronald G Wittig forwarded the following "Impeachment of George Bush Now"
resolution, forwarded previously by Tom Simmons and Rod Remeln...

> Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
> by FRANCIS BOYLE
>
> http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes and
> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)
>
> January 17, 2003
> 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, 1st Session
>
> Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high
> crimes and misdemeanors.
> _______________________________________________
>
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
> January __, 2003
>
> Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
> Committee on Judiciary.
> ________________________________________________
>
> A RESOLUTION
>
> Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high
> crimes and misdemeanors.
>
> Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States is
> impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following
> articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
>
> Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the
> United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of
> the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the
> United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment
> against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. ARTICLE I
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a
> military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of
> America by means of "A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the
> Constitution since September 11, 2001.
>
> This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to suspend
> the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A.
> Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of
> foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens
> of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration;
> interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases
> to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
> unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights
> of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly,
> and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the
> federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian
> Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the
> Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and
> Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the
> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
> Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
> reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna
> Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total
> Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern
> Military Command for the United States of America itself.
>
> In all of this, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE II
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal Protection Clause of
> the Constitution.
>
> U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and
> Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system
> that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of
> citizens.
>
> Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal
> protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a
> war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this
> country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers.
>
> In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE III
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal
> law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and
> threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security
> Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq.
>
> In all of this, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE IV
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to
> engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by
> employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of
> hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children.
>
> This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use
> of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment,
> or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land
> warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague
> Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I
> thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide
> Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field
> Manual 27-10 (1956).
>
> In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE V
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of
> war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations
> Charter and international law.
>
> From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President embarked on a
> course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful
> resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President approached
> Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives
> were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress
> meaningless.
>
> The President has not received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in
> contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S.
> Constitution has declared that he will go to war regardless of the views
> of the American people.
>
> In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George Walker Bush has
> acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of
> constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and
> justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> ARTICLE VI
>
> In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George
> Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
> the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
> ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
> States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
> laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to
> commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into
> aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United
> Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the
> Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other
> international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United
> States.
>
> In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his
> trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
> great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury
> of the people of the United States.
>
> Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
> trial, and removal from office.
>
> (In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez - R.I.P. - and H. Res. 34,
> 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 16, 1991.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.rise4news.net/Impeachment_Resolution.html
>

FAX this page to Impeachment Resolution Against President George Before he enter on
your W. Bush the Execution of his
Representative Office, he shall
and demand that take the following
he or she Oath or
introduce the by Affirmation:--"I do
impeachment solemnly swear (or
resolution in affirm) that I will
the House faithfully execute
immediately! Francis A. Boyle the Office of
President of the
Why Fax? An Professor of Law United States, and
activist will to the best of
recently called January 17, 2003 my Ability,
three preserve, protect
Congressional and defend the
Offices and all Constitution of the
three said United States."
faxing is best! --U.S. Const. Art.
(Click on the 108nd Congress H.Res.XX II, Sec. 1,
"your Cl. 8
Representative" 1st Session
link above to This Constitution,
find your Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the and the Laws of the
Congressperson's United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. United States which
web site. They shall be made in
all have contact _______________________________________________ Pursuance thereof;
links that will and all Treaties
show a fax IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES made, or which shall
number). be made, under the
January __, 2003 Authority of the
Rights, like United States, shall
muscles, must be Mr./Ms. Y submitted the following resolution; be the supreme Law
exercised. which was referred to the Committee on of the Land; and the
Judiciary. Judges in every
U.S. State shall be bound
Constitution ________________________________________________ thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution
A RESOLUTION or Laws of any State
to the Contrary
Congress shall Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the notwithstanding.
make no law United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. --U.S. Const. Art.
respecting an VI, Cl. 2
establishment of Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the The President, Vice
religion, or United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. President and all
prohibiting the civil Officers of
free exercise Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States,
thereof; or the United States is impeached for high crimes shall be removed
abridging the and misdemeanors, and that the following from Office on
freedom of articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Impeachment for, and
speech, or of Senate: Conviction of,
the press; or Treason, Bribery, or
the right of the Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House other high Crimes
people peaceably of Representatives of the United States of and Misdemeanors.
to assemble, and America in the name of itself and of all of the --U.S. Const. Art .
to petition the people of the United States of America, against II, Sec. 4
Government for a George Walker Bush, President of the United
redress of States of America, in maintenance and support of Convention Against
grievances. its impeachment against him for high crimes and Torture
--The First misdemeanors.
Amendment 3rd Geneva
ARTICLE I Convention(Relative
The right of to the treatment of
the people to be In the conduct of the office of President of the prisoners of war).
secure in their United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
persons, houses, of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute 4th Geneva
papers, and the office of President of the United States Convention
effects, against and, to the best of his ability, preserve, (Relative to the
unreasonable protect, and defend the Constitution of the protection of
searches and United States, and in violation of his civilian persons in
seizures, shall constitutional duty to take care that the laws time of war.)
not be violated, be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose Kellogg-Briand Pact
and no Warrants a police state and a military dictatorship upon 1928
shall issue, but the people and Republic of the United States of (Treaty between the
upon probable America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and United States and
cause, supported Usurpations" against the Constitution since other Powers
by Oath or September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct providing for the
affirmation, and includes but is not limited to trying to suspend renunciation of war
particularly the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; as an instrument of
describing the ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act national policy.)
place to be through Congress; the mass-round-up and
searched, and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; International
the persons or depriving at least two United States citizens of Convention on the
things to be their constitutional rights by means of military Elimination of All
seized. incarceration; interference with the Forms of Racial
--The Fourth constitutional right of defendants in criminal Discrimination
Amendment cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the International
Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable Covenant on Civil
In all criminal searches and seizures; violating the First and Political Rights
prosecutions, Amendments rights of the free exercise of
the accused religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, The Nuremberg
shall enjoy the and to petition the government for redress of Principles
right to a grievances; packing the federal judiciary with
speedy and hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Posse Comitatus Act
public trial, by Federalist Society and undermining the judicial of 1878
an impartial independence of the Constitution's Article III
jury of the federal court system; violating the Third and Tit. 18 Pt. 1 Ch.
State and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War 118
district wherein Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant Sec. 2441
the crime shall on Civil and Political Rights and the (War Crimes)
have been International Convention on the Elimination of UN Charter
committed, which All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Universal
district shall reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Declaration
have been Program; violating the Vienna Convention on of Human Rights
previously Consular Relations, the Convention against U.S. Army Field
ascertained by Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Manual 27-10
law, and to be Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total (The law of land
informed of the Information Awareness Program; and establishing warfare)
nature and cause a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the Vienna Convention
of the United States of America itself. In all of this on Consular
accusation; to George Walker Bush has acted in a manner Relations
be confronted contrary to his trust as President and
with the subversive of constitutional government, to the
witnesses great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
against him; to and to the manifest injury of the people of the
have compulsory United States.
process for
obtaining Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
witnesses in his warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
favor, and to office.
have the
Assistance of ARTICLE II
Counsel for his
defence. In the conduct of the office of President of the
--The Sixth United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
Amendment of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S.
soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly
poor White, Black, and Latino and their military
service is based on the coercion of a system
that has denied viable economic opportunities to
these classes of citizens. Under the
Constitution, all classes of citizens are
guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and
calling on the poor and minorities to fight a
war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the
wealthy power elite of this country is a denial
of the rights of these soldiers. In all of this
George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE III

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S.
Constitution, federal law, and the United
Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and
threatening others, including the members of the
United Nations Security Council, to support
belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this
George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE IV

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned,
and conspired to engage in a massive war and
catastrophic aggression against Iraq by
employing methods of mass destruction that will
result in the killing of hundreds of thousands
of civilians, many of whom will be children.
This planning includes the threatened use of
nuclear weapons, and the use of such
indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by
aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians,
violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare,
the rules of customary international law set
forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the
Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I
thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and
Principles, the Genocide Convention, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S.
Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this
George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE V

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has committed the United
States to acts of war without congressional
consent and contrary to the United Nations
Charter and international law. From September,
2001 through January, 2003, the President
embarked on a course of action that
systematically eliminated every option for
peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis.
Once the President approached Congress for
consent to war, tens of thousands of American
soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any
substantive debate by Congress meaningless. The
President has not received a Declaration of War
by Congress, and in contravention of the written
word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S.
Constitution has declared that he will go to war
regardless of the views of the American people.
In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of
War, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President and
subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the
United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

ARTICLE VI

In the conduct of the office of President of the
United States, George Walker Bush, in violation
of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute
the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared,
and conspired to commit crimes against the peace
by leading the United States into aggressive war
against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter,
Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand
Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956),
numerous other international treaties and
agreements, and the Constitution of the United
States. In all of this George Walker Bush has
acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause
of law and justice and to the manifest injury of
the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from
office.

In memory of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez -
R.I.P. - and H. Res. 34, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess.,
Jan. 16, 1991.)
>
> Views expressed in this forum not necessarily endorsed by The Watchmen On
> the Wall, LLC. The Watchmen On the Wall, LLC, bears no liability for the
> content of posted messages. Any unauthorized use or misuse of the name
> Watchmen On the Wall or W.O.W. will result in prosecution.
>
> By subscribing to this email list, you agree to indemnify the owners of
> the list. You agree to never use information received from this list to
> the detriment of anyone associated with this
> list. If you do not agree with this policy, Unsubscribe NOW! by sending a
> blank message to
>
> mailto:watchmen_on_the_wall-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> To Post message: watchmen_on_the_wall@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: watchmen_on_the_wall-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: watchmen_on_the_wall-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: watchmen_on_the_wall-owner@yahoogroups.com
> URL: http://groups..yahoo.com/group/watchmen_on_the_wall
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[HGTV Dream Home Giveaway]

>
> Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites:
> Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> Web: www.liberty-northwest.org
> Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: www.lpidaho.org
>
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe by email: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:56:22 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank and Ron!

Sorry guys, this thing is such a joke. I'm only going to respond to a few
parts of it because it's not worth wasting my time.

Frank, quoting Ron wrote, in part:
>><http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/>http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/

This probably says all that really needs to be said. "It's a conspiracy
out there. The

One-world-bilderburger-zionist-masonic-knights-templar-federal-reserve-CIA-black-helicopter
conspiracy has taken another step to consolidate its power!"

Sheesh!

>> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes and
>> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
>> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)

Oh, yes. "Demand" action.

>>This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to
>>suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus;

Hmm. Habeas Corpus means judicial review of whether continued detention is
permissible. So far as I know, that's been the case for everyone detained
in the US. Even foreigners who overstayed their visas.

>> ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress;

This one's a real knee-slapper. Since the congresscritters almost
unanimously voted in favor of something that he signed, that's supposed to
be one of the reasons that those same congresscritters should use to
impeach him? If pigs had wings, they'd still not be able to fly--but
they'd stand a better chance than this little bit of idiocy. And never
mind that the so-called "PATRIOT Act" was bad and unconstitutional law. No
congress has any business impeaching a president for signing such a law if
it was passed by congress (even a previous congress). They ought to
impeach the congresscritters first--which, of course, will happen when pigs
fly at supersonic speeds.

>> the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts;
>> depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional
>> rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the
>> constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers;
>> violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
>> unreasonable searches and seizures;

All of which, even if true, are only pale shadows of what has gone before
and have been reviewed and blessed by the courts. So...is congress
supposed to impeach the judges too? Yeah, probably. See below.

>> violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion,
>> freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government
>> for redress of grievances;

Hunh?! What was it with all that anti-war protesting last weekend? Is
this a complaint about shutting down a Moslem "charity" or two that had
sent money to terrorists? I'll bet these people weren't complaining about
"free exercise of religion" etc. when outfits like the Aryan Nations
"church" got stomped on because of their support for violence against Jews
and Blacks.

>> packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the
>> totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial
>> independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system;

This one's really rich! The Federalist Society is "totalitarian"??? Yeah
and Stalin was a misunderstood liberal democrat in the Thomas Jefferson
mold. Sure. About the only thing area where the Federalist Society might
tend to disagree with libertarians is in the area of whether "community
standards" should apply to laws on morality. Otherwise, on private
property rights, "states rights", the bill of rights, the 14th and 15th
amendment rights, they are practically indistinguishable from
libertarians. The main thing that seems to distinguish the Federalist
Society is it's call to honor the original intent of the constitution and
to reduce this idea of "a living constitution" which basically means that
the constitution means whatever some judge wants it to mean. To call them
"totalitarian" tells me that whoever wrote this piece of drek thinks that
it is "totalitarian" to *not* redistribute wealth, to allow states to use
the political process to decide when life begins and how it should be
protected, to want to reduce the commerce clause to mean anything less than
"the feds can do whatever they want", to want the 2nd amendment to mean an
individual right, to think that capital punishment is not "cruel and
unusual", etc. All of that is "totalitarian" to the authors of this
"impeachment."

The people who wrote this might not be commie-pinko-liberal-socialists, but
they're so darn close it's almost not worth trying to distinguish. I'm
betting that if they call themselves anything, they call themselves
"progressive", but who really cares? They are totally out-to-lunch.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:36:27 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote...

> Greetings Frank and Ron!
> Sorry guys, this thing is such a joke. I'm only going to respond to a few
> parts of it because it's not worth wasting my time.

Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What else
is new?

> Frank, quoting Ron wrote, in part:
> >><http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/>http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
> This probably says all that really needs to be said. "It's a conspiracy
> out there. The
>
One-world-bilderburger-zionist-masonic-knights-templar-federal-reserve-CIA-black-helicopter
> conspiracy has taken another step to consolidate its power!"
> > Sheesh!

I don't recall either Ron or I writing this. But, if you say so.

> >> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes and
> >> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
> >> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)
> Oh, yes. "Demand" action.

So, what's your problem with that? I've been advocating and demanding
the removal of this regime for many, many months! I only wish opinion
polls agreed more with me, and showed the majority of real Americans
demanding the same thing. Thankfully, the polls ARE beginning to show
a shift. To early to tell where this will go.

> >>This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to
> >>suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus;

> Hmm. Habeas Corpus means judicial review of whether continued detention
is
> permissible. So far as I know, that's been the case for everyone detained
> in the US. Even foreigners who overstayed their visas.

Right! Like at Camp X-Ray, and American citizens being detained
indefinitely without charges being filed. I don't know what planet
you live on sometimes Lowell.

> >> ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress;
>
> This one's a real knee-slapper. Since the congresscritters almost
> unanimously voted in favor of something that he signed, that's supposed to
> be one of the reasons that those same congresscritters should use to
> impeach him? If pigs had wings, they'd still not be able to fly--but
> they'd stand a better chance than this little bit of idiocy. And never
> mind that the so-called "PATRIOT Act" was bad and unconstitutional law.
No
> congress has any business impeaching a president for signing such a law if
> it was passed by congress (even a previous congress). They ought to
> impeach the congresscritters first--which, of course, will happen when
pigs
> fly at supersonic speeds.

This hysteria will only change, when people change. And the polls are
beginning to show a marked change in how the people support this
unilateral shoot from the hip war in the negative. With further
erosion in the polls, and with about 70% of Americans believing that
this unilateral attack should NOT occur, the "Congresscriters" will
have second thoughts about supporting this outrageous crap any
further. Support for the Vietnam War shifted mainly under the same
conditions. Like it or not Lowell, it's happening again. "The Times
they are a changin'"

> >> the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts;
> >> depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional
> >> rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the
> >> constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers;
> >> violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
> >> unreasonable searches and seizures;

> All of which, even if true, are only pale shadows of what has gone before
> and have been reviewed and blessed by the courts. So...is congress
> supposed to impeach the judges too? Yeah, probably. See below.

Absolutely excellent if they do, but I'd settle for just renouncing
unilateral use of US military force right now, and withdrawing funding
for it.

> >> violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of
religion,
> >> freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government
> >> for redress of grievances;

> Hunh?! What was it with all that anti-war protesting last weekend? Is
> this a complaint about shutting down a Moslem "charity" or two that had
> sent money to terrorists? I'll bet these people weren't complaining about
> "free exercise of religion" etc. when outfits like the Aryan Nations
> "church" got stomped on because of their support for violence against Jews
> and Blacks.

Boy Lowell. You're a lot further out there than I ever thought you
were. Someone really must be rubbing on a raw nerve. Lighten up a bit.

You ignore the facts that this Regime has been eroding individual
liberty and human rights since the day it took office, and has
accelerated that process since 9/11, which I suppose was a giant
pretext to do so when such support would most likely be forthcoming,
and without question. If you really feel comfortable with Tom Ridge
being elevated to Cabinet level status, and Asscroft as Attorney
General, and Heir Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence, then sir, you
deserve this fascist state! You condone it, you support it, you argue
for it -- it's yours! Entirely yours! It is not mine, and I do not,
and will not support a totalitarian police state.

[The rest of hysteria snipped for brevity...]

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. I don't
honestly understand your passion and zeal for promoting an attack upon
another state when no inherent threat exists (outside of our own
making and design) against the United States. You appear to be
totally closed toward any criticism at all over the actions of the
present regime. You seem to believe that the ends justify the means.
It's okay to zap Constitutional rights. You believe it is okay for
individuals to be deprived of their freedom, insofar as this is
necessary to defeat another force that would never likely be a threat
at all if we had a neutral and non-aggressive foreign policy.

In fact, you seem to believe that the same tactics employed by
dictatorial and fascist regimes are perfectly okay, if the ends
justify the means of defeating a remote tyrant anywhere defined by the
US government, even though that is none of our business.

It is no accident at all, that world opinion has so quickly shifted
away from sympathy for us after the acts of 9/11, and are now becoming
most vocal and critical of our real intentions and aggression. We're
losing it fast. It is OUR fault that we are losing it, because we have
lost focus. We've been losing it in the same way for the last five
decades of our imperialistic and militaristic "gun boat" foreign
policy.

Even Americans today are starting to become more vocal and critical.
That, sir, may become our ultimate salvation in any of this, before we
lose our final credibility in the court of world opinion.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:12:23 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What
> else is new?

Yes, and there are plenty of other facts to use to
impeach Bush.

For example, he fails to take seriously the charge that
the moon landings were faked.

See
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=124&contentid=684

I do not think we have to look any further.

Regards
Tim

Patterns of the Soul
Gideon: There's a benefit in knowing people in
high places

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:54:57 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

ROFLMAO! Thanks Tim!

Lowell
Tim Bedding wrote, in part:
>Frank
>
> > Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What
> > else is new?
>
>Yes, and there are plenty of other facts to use to
>impeach Bush.
>
>For example, he fails to take seriously the charge that
>the moon landings were faked.
>
>See
>http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=124&contentid=684
>
>I do not think we have to look any further.
>
>Regards
>Tim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:30:32 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank
>Greetings Lowell!
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote...
> > Greetings Frank and Ron!
> > Sorry guys, this thing is such a joke. I'm only going to respond to a
few
> > parts of it because it's not worth wasting my time.
>
>Of course not! "Don't confuse me with the facts, syndrome." What else
>is new?

Amazing that you would say this since you are guilty of this yourself in
the very post you put this in. See below.

>...
>I don't recall either Ron or I writing this. But, if you say so.

Well the return address was your name and you were quoting something that
Ron had forwarded--either to you or to the list (and I think I missed
seeing it on the list). You had a short approving comment at the beginning
IIRC.

> > >> (Editor's Note: It's time to impeach George Bush. His high crimes
and
> > >> misdemeanors can not stand. Fax this impeachment resolution to your
> > >> senators and congresspeople and demand their immediate action.)
> > Oh, yes. "Demand" action.
>
>So, what's your problem with that? I've been advocating and demanding
>the removal of this regime for many, many months! I only wish opinion
>polls agreed more with me, and showed the majority of real Americans
>demanding the same thing. Thankfully, the polls ARE beginning to show
>a shift. To early to tell where this will go.

Dream on about the polls--especially after the SOTU speech. And I was
making fun of the "demand action" part because later they say that the one
of the reasons for the impeachment is that Bush signed a bill that Congress
passed.

> > >>This subversive conduct includes, but is not limited to, trying to
> > >>suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus;
>
> > Hmm. Habeas Corpus means judicial review of whether continued detention
is
> > permissible. So far as I know, that's been the case for everyone
detained
> > in the US. Even foreigners who overstayed their visas.
>
>Right! Like at Camp X-Ray, and American citizens being detained
>indefinitely without charges being filed. I don't know what planet
>you live on sometimes Lowell.

Habeas Corpus means "you have the body". It basically provides for showing
why the continued detention is lawful. See
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm. The two American citizens' detention
HAS been reviewed by the courts. And Camp X-Ray is actually a better
situation than those guys deserve. We are treating them as PWs rather than
as non-lawful combatants. But apparently, even that isn't good enough for
you.

> > >> ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress;
> >
> > This one's a real knee-slapper. Since the congresscritters almost
> > unanimously voted in favor of something that he signed, that's supposed
to
> > be one of the reasons that those same congresscritters should use to
> > impeach him? If pigs had wings, they'd still not be able to fly--but
> > they'd stand a better chance than this little bit of idiocy. And never
> > mind that the so-called "PATRIOT Act" was bad and unconstitutional law.
No
> > congress has any business impeaching a president for signing such a law
if
> > it was passed by congress (even a previous congress). They ought to
> > impeach the congresscritters first--which, of course, will happen when
pigs
> > fly at supersonic speeds.
>
>This hysteria will only change, when people change. And the polls are
>beginning to show a marked change in how the people support this
>unilateral shoot from the hip war in the negative. With further
>erosion in the polls, and with about 70% of Americans believing that
>this unilateral attack should NOT occur, the "Congresscriters" will
>have second thoughts about supporting this outrageous crap any
>further. Support for the Vietnam War shifted mainly under the same
>conditions. Like it or not Lowell, it's happening again. "The Times
>they are a changin'"

I'm not sure how this relates to what I said above. And it's already
obsolete as far as what happened in the polls. Besides, rather than
howling for impeachment, a far better approach to getting rid of the
so-called "Patriot Act" would be to contact your congresscritter and put
some heat on it to repeal the worst parts.

> > >> the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts;
> > >> depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional
> > >> rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the
> > >> constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers;
> > >> violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and
> > >> unreasonable searches and seizures;
>
> > All of which, even if true, are only pale shadows of what has gone
before
> > and have been reviewed and blessed by the courts. So...is congress
> > supposed to impeach the judges too? Yeah, probably. See below.
>
>Absolutely excellent if they do, but I'd settle for just renouncing
>unilateral use of US military force right now, and withdrawing funding
>for it.

I see.

> > >> violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of
religion,
> > >> freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government
> > >> for redress of grievances;
>
> > Hunh?! What was it with all that anti-war protesting last weekend? Is
> > this a complaint about shutting down a Moslem "charity" or two that had
> > sent money to terrorists? I'll bet these people weren't complaining
about
> > "free exercise of religion" etc. when outfits like the Aryan Nations
> > "church" got stomped on because of their support for violence against
Jews
> > and Blacks.
>
>Boy Lowell. You're a lot further out there than I ever thought you
>were. Someone really must be rubbing on a raw nerve. Lighten up a bit.
>
>You ignore the facts that this Regime has been eroding individual
>liberty and human rights since the day it took office, and has
>accelerated that process since 9/11, which I suppose was a giant
>pretext to do so when such support would most likely be forthcoming,
>and without question. If you really feel comfortable with Tom Ridge
>being elevated to Cabinet level status, and Asscroft as Attorney
>General, and Heir Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence, then sir, you
>deserve this fascist state! You condone it, you support it, you argue
>for it -- it's yours! Entirely yours! It is not mine, and I do not,
>and will not support a totalitarian police state.

Let me get this straight. On the one hand, we had anti-war protests all
over the country last weekend (presumably these are protests against what
the government officials want to do) and so far as I can tell, the only
arrests (if any) were for things like vandalism or violence or some other
non-political criminal behavior. Meanwhile, Frank Reichert (and the
"Impeach Bush" crowd) think that this government is violating of "freedom
of speech" and "peaceable assembly" and "to petition the government for
redress of grievances". So Frank, what exactly were these "protestors"
doing if they weren't exercising freedom of speech, assembly and
petition!!! I brought up some facts and you ignore those facts in your
response while accusing me of ignoring facts! Good grief, Frank!

>[The rest of hysteria snipped for brevity...]
>
>I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. I don't
>honestly understand your passion and zeal for promoting an attack upon
>another state when no inherent threat exists (outside of our own
>making and design) against the United States. You appear to be
>totally closed toward any criticism at all over the actions of the
>present regime. You seem to believe that the ends justify the means.
>It's okay to zap Constitutional rights. You believe it is okay for
>individuals to be deprived of their freedom, insofar as this is
>necessary to defeat another force that would never likely be a threat
>at all if we had a neutral and non-aggressive foreign policy.

I thought I was talking about a silly "Impeach Bush" petition. But now you
seem to think it had to do with "promoting and attack..." and that just
because I think this thing is silly, it means that I'm "totally closed to
any criticism...of the present regime." But I suppose that explains why
your first sentence says you don't understand my point.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Impeach George Bush Now (Resolution)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:19:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote in part:
> > Thankfully, the polls ARE beginning to show
> >a shift. To early to tell where this will go.

You replied:
> Dream on about the polls--especially after the SOTU speech. And I was
> making fun of the "demand action" part because later they say that the one
> of the reasons for the impeachment is that Bush signed a bill that
Congress
> passed.

According to CBS News, the momentum against a non-sanctioned by the UN
attack on Iraq is growing, even following the SOTU speech. In fact,
CBS ran a clip showing that many Americans still remain unconvinced.
Street protests also seem to be growing in size and number.

And we are talking only in the US. But Nelson Mandella was also
prominently on CBS evening news last night claiming that the Bush
leadership was short sighted, and that US aggression has become a
problem for critical concern in the world community. Nelson Mandella,
like him or not, is still considered to be one of the world's
prominent elder statesmen. The clip will obviously enjoy global
coverage on a plethora of international news media.

You seem to naively believe Bush can make one speak, and gloss over
all of the blunders of decades of imperialistic and aggressive foreign
policy, or conveniently sweep it under the rug and out of sight, and
no one will be paying attention.

I notice too the Shrub Regime's<tm> latest "proof" of Iraqi complicity
with al-Queada was the American diplomat that was recently gunned down
in Jordan, who spirited off to Baghdad after the assassination. Our
regime claims that this is irrefutable and indisputable proof that
"al-Queada exists in Baghdad". Well, excuse me. Al-Queada exists in
approximately 60 or more countries around the globe, including likely
cells in every major US city! Big deal. So far at least I haven't
seen the so-called smoking gun linking Saddam Hussein with al-Queada.
Obviously most of the rest of the planet hasn't either.

> Habeas Corpus means "you have the body". It basically provides for
showing
> why the continued detention is lawful. See
> http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm. The two American citizens' detention
> HAS been reviewed by the courts. And Camp X-Ray is actually a better
> situation than those guys deserve. We are treating them as PWs rather
than
> as non-lawful combatants. But apparently, even that isn't good enough for
you.

"Lawful" ain't gonna cut it, considering all of the recent legislation
rammed through over this terrorism phobia. I believe a lot of this
initial hysteria is now dying down, and people are beginning to look
at much of this in a more rational way. Even several members of the
GOP in Congress are beginning to come around and suggest that the
current regime's policy might really be insanity in action.

I previously wrote:
> Support for the Vietnam War shifted mainly under the same
> >conditions. Like it or not Lowell, it's happening again. "The Times
> >they are a changin'"

> I'm not sure how this relates to what I said above. And it's already
> obsolete as far as what happened in the polls. Besides, rather than
> howling for impeachment, a far better approach to getting rid of the
> so-called "Patriot Act" would be to contact your congresscritter and put
> some heat on it to repeal the worst parts.

I guess we could do that too. But what I wrote is applicable in a lot
of ways, since in the early mid-1960's Americans really believed in
our government's lies and deception, even to the point of giving
Lyndon Johnson carte blanc authority to prosecute a war based on
approving the 'Gulf of Tonkin' resolution, which was based entirely on
fraud, as we know now.

Maybe we should ask some questions now, BEFORE we embark again on a
unilateral war that enjoys no international support, whether or not we
have any case at all that might PROVE that (1) Iraq is an imminent
threat to the United States and must be dealt with in the next few
weeks; (2) Whether or not the allegations of the Iraqi government's
links with al-Queada are valid and backed up by factual evidence; (3)
if Saudi proposals and others within the region might work out
satisfactorily without the blunder of US aggression in starting
another war; and (4) whether the possible catastrophic consequences of
such a war might be far worse that the current realities in place?

> Let me get this straight. On the one hand, we had anti-war protests all
> over the country last weekend (presumably these are protests against what
> the government officials want to do) and so far as I can tell, the only
> arrests (if any) were for things like vandalism or violence or some other
> non-political criminal behavior.

Happy to hear YOU recognize that there is a growing number of US
citizens who are calling into question this insanity. Thank you. Most
of our government's reaction to such protests at this time have more
to do with PR, than what some in government would likely like to do. I
don't doubt that Asscroft would love to incarcerate protesters on the
basis of sedition -- it just wouldn't look good on camera to see such
people being arrested and hauled off by the gestapo and shipped to the
gulag (Camp Xray, or others). We may not be far from that ultimately
happening however, although if it does, then it will most likely be
low key, targeting individuals through the new Office of Homeland
Security. I can likely imagine that because of "national security
concerns", even such names or allegations might not be released. That
seems to be the growing 'catch all' phrase being used these days.

> Meanwhile, Frank Reichert (and the
> "Impeach Bush" crowd) think that this government is violating of "freedom
> of speech" and "peaceable assembly" and "to petition the government for
> redress of grievances". So Frank, what exactly were these "protestors"
> doing if they weren't exercising freedom of speech, assembly and
> petition!!! I brought up some facts and you ignore those facts in your
> response while accusing me of ignoring facts! Good grief, Frank!

Thank you. I feel proud to be considered a dissident in opposition to
this regime. I have no doubt that laws are already on the books that
make all of the above actions, prosecutable under current law. You
haven't really proved much of anything Lowell, only that it is the
regime's best interest not to make Americans aware at this point in
time, what the new laws of the land really are.

As I watched The Shrub's<tm> explanations tonight on the CBS evening
news, I again was astounded that such a toad is in charge of a country
faced with an enormous economic melt down, where the regime's own
policies have largely contributed to that, and then fumble and screw
up words in describing the current stand off with Iraq! It was amazing
to watch "our President" frivolously say, "Iran", then correct
himself, and say "Iraq", and answer the questions in a shallow, hardly
knowledgeable way in describing who America's "allies" really are.
And, this is the man who is in charge of making decisions that could
suck us all into the preverbal black hole!

Most of my economic portfolio is in four sectors, that being the
airline sector, tech sector, automotive sector, and some of my
diversified stocks. All four have been going into the melt down mode
since March of 2002 (four months AFTER the 9/11 tragedy)! The closer
we are coming to this "showdown" with Iraq, the more rapidly all of
these key sectors are rapidly decreasing in value. In other words,
the economy was making corrections following the tragedy of 9/11,
until March 2002, when the uncertainty of the Administration over
declaring unilateral wars against terrorism began to start including
just about everyone that could be drudged up, including this 'Axis of
Evil' blunder.

In the last couple of weeks in fact, all four sectors have shown
incredible downturns in terms of share value, and even more hawkish
economic analysts place the blame largely upon this uncertain war
against Iraq and the direction that Bush is taking in the face of
massive opposition in the international community.

This suggests to me that there really is very little confidence in the
Shrub Regime's<tm> capability for leadership. When the nation's
economic infrastructure is THIS weak, it hardly suggests very much
confidence in the nation's current leadership, or domestic and foreign
policies either.

This war may have the potential for reducing America to a position of
economic isolation, and certainly has the potential for a
restructuring of new geopolitical realities, especially if this 'war'
turns out to be a giant blunder with enormous global repercussions. We
may see such things as the Euro becoming the favoured international
currency, including pricing for petroleum. Since the dollar has
fallen about 25-30 percent against the Euro in the last several
months, that isn't too far off unless we can again recapture our
position of monetary reliability. Even the Japanese Yen has made
substantial gains over the dollar in the last several weeks. And
Japan's economic health is supposed to be in the shit house!

What is strange about this is that after 9/11 we had tremendous
sympathy from almost every nation on the planet. Individuals such as
Vladamir Putin pledged Russia's support, and was one of the very first
heads of state to get on the telephone and call The Shrub<tm>, to
offer whatever assistance he could.

Look where we are today. Our arrogance, shoot from the hip, and
reckless 'go it alone' attitude has managed to screw up so badly that
we have lost key allied support from France, German, Russia and a host
of others in supporting of unilateral war against Iraq (which until
now hasn't been conclusively demonstrated to even be a relevant issue
for US interests or concerns.

Lowell. Support this insanity all you want. For me, I'm a non-taker.
This stinks.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:45:33 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com>, <libnw@immosys.com>

To all:

And interesting report forwarded to me.
I haven't thought much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably think
some of it (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how
unneighborly Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can expect
other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with you".

I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not shown a
substantive reason to do so.
Our govt says they have weapons of mass destruction, but there haven't any
to be found.
Our govt says "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really
reliable sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously the
info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would hear about it).
Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey inspectors, check other
there", that too was a dud.
The inspectors on their own found empty warheads in an abandoned storage
facility that everyone forgot about, but that too shows very little for our
govt's cause.
Despite all its resources to prove what it is trying to say, our govt has
not even come up with an Iraqi conspiracy, or document showing it plans harm
on the US (at least at this point, has anyone heard of an Iraqi terrorist?..
Given our actions it may later become a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
Our govt says we cannot let Iraq continue because it might in the future
create and use WOMD, that they are secretly planning all kinds of terrorism.
This is also an unsubstantive argument - one that could be used on any
country at all we don't like. Its an easy thing to do when you don't even
need evidence to substantiate it
And the other pat reasons given for war w/Iraq, are all artificial and are
not even consistent with our treatment of other equally despotic or
dangerous countries. Bush et al, has fixated on Iraq at this point with a
rabid tunnel vision that is feverish.
Lacking any viable foundation for such a war, he has been reduced to coming
up with empty excuses that sound just like Hitler's justifications for
invading Czhechoslovakia and Poland (we can let their people suffer under
that regime and conditions, we need breathing room and stability in that
region, they blew up our radio station, well ok not that last one but it is
sure in coming ;-)

I am thinking about Bush a little bit; what position would we be in had Gore
won the election?
When Clinton was in office we had economic success, shortly before/after
Bush we hit a recession.
Would the twin towers still be there if the relatively softer Gore was in
office? Maybe, as the immediate tensions would not run as high, and our
enemies thought there was some wiggle room to play with us.
Would we be at the brink of a fabricated war? Somehow I don't think so.
It was almost in the cards when Bush was elected, it is so obvious its
embarrassing. He gets back at Iraq almost as a familial grudge, cause
daddy was prevented from finishing the job.

But some of the discussion on this newsgroup entailed socialists trying to
control our war policy. I thought this report was comprehensive and
informative, but I don't know if it is socialist driven, seems sincere to
me. Others here might have a more thorough analysis.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peggy
To: G Triest
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:28 AM
Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT

"Thorne Anderson is an..award-winning international photojournalist whose
analysis of the situation in Iraq is sobering. I am forwarding this
message..because I know you are concerned about the situation in Iraq and/or
war in general. My hope (and I think, Thorne's) is that you can pass it to
those you know.. for verification and action. Thorne's photos can be found
at
several websites via a Google search. His emailaddress is
tivka@rocketmail.com, should you desire to contact him directly. Please
contact him directly for permission to publish anything he has written."

Regards, Diana
Diana Swancutt
Assistant Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
diana.swancutt@yale.edu

Subject: Eyewitness Account
I am writing to let friends and family know that I am home in Belgrade
after spending a month in Iraq. I don't plan to return to Iraq until late
December or early January -- perhaps earlier if it appears that there will
be an attack. I'm really committed to the Iraq issue, and I can't even think
about other work in other places until there is some kind of resolution to
the crisis in Iraq.

Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq, but this
was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my time in
Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an impending attack
by the United States, I never met a single Iraqi who had a harsh word for
me. Iraqis are very good at
distinguishing between the U.S. government and a U.S. citizen.

Some friends and family are also already wondering why I would want to go
back to Iraq, as I am committed and already anxious to do. It just seems to
me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is where I might best play a role in
making a small difference. I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines
while in Iraq, but that kind of work has really become secondary for me. I
do what I can to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of stories
those big magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly worthless at
confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the Middle East.

I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other corporate
media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of my efforts
are now going into reaching alternative media and in supporting anti-war
groups in the states. I hope I can find some time soon to come to the states
for a speaking tour of sorts.

There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war with
Iraq. What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is already at war in
Iraq. I made two trips last month into the "no-fly zone" created by the U.S.
with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better named
the "only we fly" zone or the "we bomb" zone. "We" refers to the United
States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled out
years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). There is another
no-fly zone in the north, which the U.S. says it maintains to protect the
Kurds, but
while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it does
nothing to prevent or even to criticize Turkey (a U.S. ally) from flying
into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish communities
there.

Turkey¹s bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. The U.S. has been
bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the past 12 years.
There were seven civilians killed in these bombings about two weeks ago, and
I¹m told of more civilians last week, but I'm sure that didn't get much or
perhaps any press in the U.S.

It is estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999.
Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account the
effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the bombing. The U.S.
has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this radioactive material in Iraq
(30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo) since 1991. Some of the DU is
further contaminated with other radioactive particles including Neptunium
and Plutonium 239, perhaps the most carcinogenic of all radioactive
materials, and these particles are now beginning to show up in ground water
samples.

I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi hospitals. Since
U.S. bombing began in Iraq, cancer rates have increased nearly six fold in
the south, where U.S. bombing and consequent levels of DU are most severe.
The most pronounced increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney, and thyroid
cancers associated with poisoning by heavy metals (such as DU).

But the most lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime. The toll
of the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories of the past
decade in the U.S. press. I have seen a few references to the sanctions
recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly discredit
humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government statements rather than
on the statistics of international
agencies. My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently
reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the deaths of
thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply not true. The
Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the deaths of *more than
a million* children under the age of five. But let's put that figure aside,
for there's no need to rely solely on the Iraqi government, and let's refer
instead to UNICEF and WHO reports which blame the sanctions directly for the

excess deaths of approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and
nearly a million Iraqis of all ages.

We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after the
September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty figures,
multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a country with one
tenth the population of the United States and perhaps we can get a crude
idea of what kind of suffering has already been inflicted on the Iraqi
people in the past decade.

The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration fromdiarrhoea
caused by water-borne illnesses which are amplified by the intentional
destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities by the United
States. The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment facilities and
suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just before the American entry
into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991, Dept. of Defense document, "Iraq
Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," goes into great detail about how
the destruction of water treatment facilities and their subsequent
impairment by the sanctions regime will lead to ³increased incidences, if
not epidemics, of disease."

I can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan. Cholera,
hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in Iraq) are now quite
common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are rampant, and immunities to all
types of disease are extremely low. Even those lucky children who manage to
get a sufficient daily
caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhoea.

Around 4,000 children die every month from starvation and preventable
disease in Iraq -- a six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements.
Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of hospitals
to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions. In a hospital in
Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-year- old child. After
the boy¹s circumcision ceremony, the child was found to have a congenital
disease which inhibits his blood¹s ability to clot, which results in
excessive bleeding. The child encountered further complications when he took
a fall and sustained a head injury which was slowly drowning his brain in
his own blood. In any other country the boy would simply take regular doses
of a drug called Factor 8, and he could then lead a relatively normal life.
But an order for Factor 8 was put ³on hold² by the United
States (prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could only
watch the child die.

Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction,
but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium, and the destruction of
Iraq's health and sanitation infrastructure that are the weapons of greatest
mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is so bad that Dennis Halliday, the
former Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in Iraq, took the dramatic step
of resigning his position in protest at the sanctions. ³We are in the
process of destroying an entire society,² Halliday wrote. ³It is as simple
and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.² And Halliday isn¹t
alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned in protest and went so
far as to
describe the sanctions as genocide. These are not left-wing radicals. These
are career bureaucrats who chose to throw away their careers at the UN
rather than give tacit support to unethical policies driven by the United
States.

Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and
sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror a new
war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be just the
beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the Middle East and
the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and
Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware of how the fragile politics
and powers outside Iraq can be dramatically unsettled by a U.S. invasion
within Iraq. It¹s easy to imagine an impending tragedy of enormous
proportion before us, and I ask myself who must step up
and take responsibility for stopping it.

Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is equally
clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the U.S. government
to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for war. So I feel the
weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to do whatever we can with
our individually small but collectively powerful means to change the course
of
ur government's policy. I try to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the
future, and I don't want to be in the position where I reflect on the
enormous tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century and admit that I did
nothing at all to recognize or prevent them.

I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family who are
living in the U.S., in a media environment which does very little to
effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to encourage ordinary
people to participate in making a change. I imagine this letter may sound
like the political rant of some kind of extremist or anti-American
dissident. But that's not how it feels to me. This doesn't feel like a
political issue to me so much as it feels like a personal issue. I am
appalled on a very human level at the suffering which U.S. policy is already
inflicting and I am terrified by the prospects for an even more chaotic and
violent future.

And let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S. government
pushing for war say they are doing so to promote democracy, to protect the
rights of minorities, and to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction.
But is the U.S. threatening to attack Saudi Arabia or a host of other U.S.
allies which have similarly un-democratic regimes? How many of us would
advocate going to war withTurkey over the brutal repression of its Kurdish
minority and of the Kurds in Iraq? And do we expect the U.S. to bomb Israel
or Pakistan which each have hundreds of nuclear weapons? Let¹s remember
that leaders in the previous weapons inspection team in Iraq had declared
that 95% of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction capabilities were destroyed.
And let¹s not forget
that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using chemical weapons against the
Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had nothing to say about it. On the
contrary, at that time President Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to
normalize diplomatic relations, to support its war with Iran, and to offer
subsidies for preferential trade with Iraq. That envoy arrived in Baghdad on
the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq¹s use of chemical weapons, and he
said absolutely nothing about it.

That envoy, by the way, was Donald Rumsfeld. While Iraq probably has very
little weaponry to actually threaten the United States, they do have oil.
According to a recent survey of the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in
southern Iraq, they may even have the world¹s largest oil reserves,
surpassing those of Saudi Arabia.

Let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can, in good
conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to control its
oil. I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens,
Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of
sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see the
place, as I
have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could see Iraq as a nation
of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, mechanics, and
window washers, and not simply as a single cartoonish villain. I genuinely
believe that my view of Iraq is a view that would sit comfortably in
mainstream America if most Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes and
not simply
through the eyes of a media establishment which has simply gotten used to
ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign policy
aims.

While the American media fixates on the evils of the ³repressive regime of
Saddam Hussein,² both real and wildly exaggerated, how often are we
reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more than 150,000 were
killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, estimated 200,000). I
simply don¹t believe that most Americans could come face-to-face with the
Iraqi people and
say from their hearts that they deserve another war.

I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection of the
most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful. I believe in
the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving international
conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values, and they are exactly
the values that are most imperiled by present U.S. policy. That's why, as a
citizen of the United States and as a member of humanity, I can't rest
easily so long as I think there is something, anything, that I can do to
make a difference.

Love, Thorn

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:00:23 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Yeah, yeah..."Da sancshuns in Iraq are killing da babies!" Sorry, take a
look at http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqkrd1.htm

The Kurds get 13% of the money from the "Oil for food" program and use it
to take care of the people (13% of the total Iraq population). Saddam
Hussein gets the other 87% and uses it to build his "palaces" and build his
army and WMD. So, the Kurds have a lower infant mortality rate (and better
living standards, etc.) than the rest of Iraq. Gee, what a surprise. But
some dipwad goes to Iraq and swallows the official government line hook,
line and sinker and we're supposed to believe everything he says as gospel
truth.

As for everyone being hurt by DU, you have to understand that if DU has a
half-life of 4.5 million years, that means that it isn't very
radioactive. The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
which masquerades as Iodine. Strontium has a half life that is measured in
weeks. You get a little bit of that stuff in you, your thyroid sucks it up
and within a few weeks, half of it has degraded (radioactively) into
whatever Strontium degrades into and each atom that's degraded has fired
off some ionizing radiation through your thyroid. You've got to get
something like 4.5 million *times* as much uranium into you to get the same
kind of radiation. (Actually, if the Strontium half-life is 2 weeks--I'm
too lazy to look it up but that's what I remember, then you really need 25
* 4.5m = 112.5million times as much uranium. If the Strontium half-life is
4 weeks, then you "only" need 56.25million times as much uranium to have
the same trouble as you'd get from some Strontium.)

On top of all that, DU isn't used in bombs (as alleged by this guy) because
there's no reason to use it. A plain ol' cheap steel casing works just
fine. And if you used DU instead of steel, you'd probably have a heavier
bomb--which means that a 200 lb steel bomb has a lot more explosive in it
than a 200lb DU-cased bomb. So whatever advantage you gain from the
heavier fragments off the DU casing is lost in the explosive
power. Besides, the military would rather spend the extra money on
guidance systems. No DU is only used in armor-piercing bullets from cannon
(like on tanks or artillery or airplanes).

Here's a web site about DU with some links to studies.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

And here's one of the studies it links to, where they implanted DU pellets
into rats and then looked at where the DU went at 1 day, 1 month, and 18
months. They also looked at things like how much uranium went out in the
urine and the feces. They also mention some other studies that looked at
things like what happens when someone eats food contaminated with Uranium
and what happens when someone breaths air that contains uranium dust. The
studies of uranium miners seemed to be relatively benign (I think I would
have rather been a uranium miner than a coal miner).

http://www.geocities.com/militarytoxics/01duscience.pdf

While I wouldn't want to spend much time around that stuff, it really
doesn't sound like the problems that this "eyewitness" and other are
attributing to DU are caused by DU. In fact, I'm willing to bet a good
meal at the best restaurant in Spokane (ok, so I'm somewhat of a cheapskate
:-) that within 2 years of Iraq being liberated, we find out from a
relatively unbiased source that there was some plant in Iraq that was
spewing some toxic chemical (I don't know what it will be: dioxin, arsenic,
who knows) and that was what was causing all the birth defects, etc. that
these "eyewitnesses" have been reporting.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 14:45 01/26/03 -0500, you wrote:
>
>To all:
>
>
>And interesting report forwarded to me.
>I haven't thought much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably
>think some of it (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how
>unneighborly Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can
>expect other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with you".
>
>I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not shown a
>substantive reason to do so.
>Our govt says they have weapons of mass destruction, but there haven't any
>to be found.
>Our govt says "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really
>reliable sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
>information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously the
>info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would hear about
it).
>Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey inspectors, check other
>there", that too was a dud.
>The inspectors on their own found empty warheads in an abandoned storage
>facility that everyone forgot about, but that too shows very little for
>our govt's cause.
>Despite all its resources to prove what it is trying to say, our govt has
>not even come up with an Iraqi conspiracy, or document showing it plans
>harm on the US (at least at this point, has anyone heard of an Iraqi
>terrorist?.. Given our actions it may later become a self-fulfilling
prophecy.)
>Our govt says we cannot let Iraq continue because it might in the future
>create and use WOMD, that they are secretly planning all kinds of
>terrorism. This is also an unsubstantive argument - one that could be used
>on any country at all we don't like. Its an easy thing to do when you
>don't even need evidence to substantiate it
>And the other pat reasons given for war w/Iraq, are all artificial and are
>not even consistent with our treatment of other equally despotic or
>dangerous countries. Bush et al, has fixated on Iraq at this point with a
>rabid tunnel vision that is feverish.
>Lacking any viable foundation for such a war, he has been reduced to
>coming up with empty excuses that sound just like Hitler's justifications
>for invading Czhechoslovakia and Poland (we can let their people suffer
>under that regime and conditions, we need breathing room and stability in
>that region, they blew up our radio station, well ok not that last one but
>it is sure in coming ;-)
>
>I am thinking about Bush a little bit; what position would we be in had
>Gore won the election?
>When Clinton was in office we had economic success, shortly before/after
>Bush we hit a recession.
>Would the twin towers still be there if the relatively softer Gore was in
>office? Maybe, as the immediate tensions would not run as high, and our
>enemies thought there was some wiggle room to play with us.
>Would we be at the brink of a fabricated war? Somehow I don't think so.
>It was almost in the cards when Bush was elected, it is so obvious its
>embarrassing. He gets back at Iraq almost as a familial grudge, cause
>daddy was prevented from finishing the job.
>
>But some of the discussion on this newsgroup entailed socialists trying to
>control our war policy. I thought this report was comprehensive and
>informative, but I don't know if it is socialist driven, seems sincere to
>me. Others here might have a more thorough analysis.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:angels@ulster.net>Peggy
>To: <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>G Triest
>Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:28 AM
>Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
>
>
>
>"Thorne Anderson is an..award-winning international photojournalist whose
>analysis of the situation in Iraq is sobering. I am forwarding this
>message..because I know you are concerned about the situation in Iraq
>and/or war in general. My hope (and I think, Thorne's) is that you can
>pass it to those you know.. for verification and action. Thorne's photos
>can be found at
>several websites via a Google search. His emailaddress is
><mailto:tivka@rocketmail.com>tivka@rocketmail.com, should you desire to
>contact him directly. Please contact him directly for permission to
>publish anything he has written."
>
>Regards, Diana
>Diana Swancutt
>Assistant Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
><mailto:diana.swancutt@yale.edu>diana.swancutt@yale.edu
>
>Subject: Eyewitness Account
>I am writing to let friends and family know that I am home in Belgrade
>after spending a month in Iraq. I don't plan to return to Iraq until late
>December or early January -- perhaps earlier if it appears that there will
>be an attack. I'm really committed to the Iraq issue, and I can't even
>think about other work in other places until there is some kind of
>resolution to the crisis in Iraq.
>
>Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq, but
>this was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my time
>in Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an impending
>attack by the United States, I never met a single Iraqi who had a harsh
>word for me. Iraqis are very good at
>distinguishing between the U.S. government and a U.S. citizen.
>
>Some friends and family are also already wondering why I would want to go
>back to Iraq, as I am committed and already anxious to do. It just seems
>to me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is where I might best play a role in
>making a small difference. I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines
>while in Iraq, but that kind of work has really become secondary for me. I
>do what I can to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of
>stories those big magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly
>worthless at confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the
>Middle East.
>
> I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other
> corporate media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of
> my efforts are now going into reaching alternative media and in
> supporting anti-war groups in the states. I hope I can find some time
> soon to come to the states for a speaking tour of sorts.
>
>There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war with
>Iraq. What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is already at war in
>Iraq. I made two trips last month into the "no-fly zone" created by the
>U.S. with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better
>named the "only we fly" zone or the "we bomb" zone. "We" refers to the
>United States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled
>out years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). There is
>another no-fly zone in the north, which the U.S. says it maintains to
>protect the Kurds, but
>while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it does
>nothing to prevent or even to criticize Turkey (a U.S. ally) from flying
>into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish communities there.
>
>Turkey¹s bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. The U.S. has been
>bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the past 12 years.
>There were seven civilians killed in these bombings about two weeks ago,
>and I¹m told of more civilians last week, but I'm sure that didn't get
>much or perhaps any press in the U.S.
>
> It is estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999.
> Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account the
> effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the bombing. The
> U.S. has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this radioactive material
> in Iraq (30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo) since 1991. Some of the
> DU is further contaminated with other radioactive particles including
> Neptunium and Plutonium 239, perhaps the most carcinogenic of all
> radioactive materials, and these particles are now beginning to show up
> in ground water samples.
>
>I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi hospitals.
>Since U.S. bombing began in Iraq, cancer rates have increased nearly six
>fold in the south, where U.S. bombing and consequent levels of DU are most
>severe. The most pronounced increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney,
>and thyroid cancers associated with poisoning by heavy metals (such as DU).
>
>But the most lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime. The
>toll of the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories of the
>past decade in the U.S. press. I have seen a few references to the
>sanctions recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly
>discredit humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government statements
>rather than on the statistics of international
>agencies. My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently
>reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the deaths of
>thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply not true. The
>Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the deaths of *more
>than a million* children under the age of five. But let's put that figure
>aside, for there's no need to rely solely on the Iraqi government, and
>let's refer instead to UNICEF and WHO reports which blame the sanctions
>directly for the
>excess deaths of approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and
>nearly a million Iraqis of all ages.
>
>We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after the
>September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty
>figures, multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a
>country with one tenth the population of the United States and perhaps we
>can get a crude idea of what kind of suffering has already been inflicted
>on the Iraqi people in the past decade.
>
> The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration
> fromdiarrhoea caused by water-borne illnesses which are amplified by the
> intentional destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities by
> the United States. The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment
> facilities and suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just before
> the American entry into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991, Dept. of
> Defense document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," goes into great
> detail about how
> the destruction of water treatment facilities and their subsequent
>impairment by the sanctions regime will lead to ³increased incidences, if
>not epidemics, of disease."
>
> I can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan. Cholera,
>hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in Iraq) are now
>quite common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are rampant, and
>immunities to all types of disease are extremely low. Even those lucky
>children who manage to get a sufficient daily
>caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhoea.
>
>Around 4,000 children die every month from starvation and preventable
>disease in Iraq -- a six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements.
>Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of
>hospitals to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions. In a
>hospital in Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-year- old
>child. After the boy¹s circumcision ceremony, the child was found to have
>a congenital disease which inhibits his blood¹s ability to clot, which
>results in excessive bleeding. The child encountered further complications
>when he took a fall and sustained a head injury which was slowly drowning
>his brain in his own blood. In any other country the boy would simply take
>regular doses of a drug called Factor 8, and he could then lead a
>relatively normal life. But an order for Factor 8 was put ³on hold² by the
>United
> States (prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could
> only watch the child die.
>
> Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass
> destruction, but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium, and
> the destruction of Iraq's health and sanitation infrastructure that are
> the weapons of greatest mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is so bad
> that Dennis Halliday, the former Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in
> Iraq, took the dramatic step of resigning his position in protest at the
> sanctions. ³We are in the process of destroying an entire society,²
> Halliday wrote. ³It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal
> and immoral.² And Halliday isn¹t alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck,
> also resigned in protest and went so far as to
>describe the sanctions as genocide. These are not left-wing radicals.
>These are career bureaucrats who chose to throw away their careers at the
>UN rather than give tacit support to unethical policies driven by the
>United States.
>
>Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and
>sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror a
>new war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be just the
>beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the Middle East
>and the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel
>and Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware of how the fragile
>politics and powers outside Iraq can be dramatically unsettled by a U.S.
>invasion within Iraq. It¹s easy to imagine an impending tragedy of
>enormous proportion before us, and I ask myself who must step up
>and take responsibility for stopping it.
>
>Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is equally
>clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the U.S.
>government to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for war. So I
>feel the weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to do whatever
>we can with our individually small but collectively powerful means to
>change the course of
>ur government's policy. I try to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the
>future, and I don't want to be in the position where I reflect on the
>enormous tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century and admit that I
>did nothing at all to recognize or prevent them.
>
>I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family who are
>living in the U.S., in a media environment which does very little to
>effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to encourage ordinary
>people to participate in making a change. I imagine this letter may sound
>like the political rant of some kind of extremist or anti-American
>dissident. But that's not how it feels to me. This doesn't feel like a
>political issue to me so much as it feels like a personal issue. I am
>appalled on a very human level at the suffering which U.S. policy is
>already inflicting and I am terrified by the prospects for an even more
>chaotic and violent future.
>
>And let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S. government
>pushing for war say they are doing so to promote democracy, to protect the
>rights of minorities, and to rid the region of weapons of mass
>destruction. But is the U.S. threatening to attack Saudi Arabia or a host
>of other U.S. allies which have similarly un-democratic regimes? How many
>of us would advocate going to war withTurkey over the brutal repression of
>its Kurdish minority and of the Kurds in Iraq? And do we expect the U.S.
>to bomb Israel or Pakistan which each have hundreds of nuclear weapons?
>Let¹s remember that leaders in the previous weapons inspection team in
>Iraq had declared that 95% of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction
>capabilities were destroyed. And let¹s not forget
>that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using chemical weapons against
>the Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had nothing to say about it. On
>the contrary, at that time President Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to
>normalize diplomatic relations, to support its war with Iran, and to offer
>subsidies for preferential trade with Iraq. That envoy arrived in Baghdad
>on the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq¹s use of chemical weapons, and
>he said absolutely nothing about it.
>
>That envoy, by the way, was Donald Rumsfeld. While Iraq probably has very
>little weaponry to actually threaten the United States, they do have oil.
>According to a recent survey of the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in
>southern Iraq, they may even have the world¹s largest oil reserves,
>surpassing those of Saudi Arabia.
>
>Let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can, in
>good conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to control
>its oil. I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens,
>Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of
>sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see the
>place, as I
>have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could see Iraq as a nation
>of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, mechanics, and
>window washers, and not simply as a single cartoonish villain. I genuinely
>believe that my view of Iraq is a view that would sit comfortably in
>mainstream America if most Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes
>and not simply
>through the eyes of a media establishment which has simply gotten used to
>ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign
>policy aims.
>
>While the American media fixates on the evils of the ³repressive regime of
>Saddam Hussein,² both real and wildly exaggerated, how often are
>we reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more than 150,000
>were killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, estimated 200,000).
>I simply don¹t believe that most Americans could come face-to-face with
>the Iraqi people and
>say from their hearts that they deserve another war.
>
>I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection of the
>most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful. I believe in
>the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving international
>conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values, and they are exactly
>the values that are most imperiled by present U.S. policy. That's why, as
>a citizen of the United States and as a member of humanity, I can't rest
>easily so long as I think there is something, anything, that I can do to
>make a difference.
>
> Love, Thorn

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:15:44 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: "Peggy & Richard Fusco" <angels@ulster.net>

Thanx Lowell, this is the kind of critical feedback I was looking for.
Yes the DU commentary seemed a bit off kilter. The stuff is good for
transmission of the highest momentum transfers, like armour piercing
ordinance, not for shrapnel.

Your article though didn't address the condition of the people in Iraq
proper though. It just talked about the boon the Kurds are having.
So the reporter may still have a point there.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT

Yeah, yeah..."Da sancshuns in Iraq are killing da babies!" Sorry, take a
look at http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqkrd1.htm

The Kurds get 13% of the money from the "Oil for food" program and use it
to take care of the people (13% of the total Iraq population). Saddam
Hussein gets the other 87% and uses it to build his "palaces" and build his
army and WMD. So, the Kurds have a lower infant mortality rate (and better
living standards, etc.) than the rest of Iraq. Gee, what a surprise. But
some dipwad goes to Iraq and swallows the official government line hook,
line and sinker and we're supposed to believe everything he says as gospel
truth.

As for everyone being hurt by DU, you have to understand that if DU has a
half-life of 4.5 million years, that means that it isn't very
radioactive. The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
which masquerades as Iodine. Strontium has a half life that is measured in
weeks. You get a little bit of that stuff in you, your thyroid sucks it up
and within a few weeks, half of it has degraded (radioactively) into
whatever Strontium degrades into and each atom that's degraded has fired
off some ionizing radiation through your thyroid. You've got to get
something like 4.5 million *times* as much uranium into you to get the same
kind of radiation. (Actually, if the Strontium half-life is 2 weeks--I'm
too lazy to look it up but that's what I remember, then you really need 25
* 4.5m = 112.5million times as much uranium. If the Strontium half-life is
4 weeks, then you "only" need 56.25million times as much uranium to have
the same trouble as you'd get from some Strontium.)

On top of all that, DU isn't used in bombs (as alleged by this guy) because
there's no reason to use it. A plain ol' cheap steel casing works just
fine. And if you used DU instead of steel, you'd probably have a heavier
bomb--which means that a 200 lb steel bomb has a lot more explosive in it
than a 200lb DU-cased bomb. So whatever advantage you gain from the
heavier fragments off the DU casing is lost in the explosive
power. Besides, the military would rather spend the extra money on
guidance systems. No DU is only used in armor-piercing bullets from cannon
(like on tanks or artillery or airplanes).

Here's a web site about DU with some links to studies.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

And here's one of the studies it links to, where they implanted DU pellets
into rats and then looked at where the DU went at 1 day, 1 month, and 18
months. They also looked at things like how much uranium went out in the
urine and the feces. They also mention some other studies that looked at
things like what happens when someone eats food contaminated with Uranium
and what happens when someone breaths air that contains uranium dust. The
studies of uranium miners seemed to be relatively benign (I think I would
have rather been a uranium miner than a coal miner).

http://www.geocities.com/militarytoxics/01duscience.pdf

While I wouldn't want to spend much time around that stuff, it really
doesn't sound like the problems that this "eyewitness" and other are
attributing to DU are caused by DU. In fact, I'm willing to bet a good
meal at the best restaurant in Spokane (ok, so I'm somewhat of a cheapskate
:-) that within 2 years of Iraq being liberated, we find out from a
relatively unbiased source that there was some plant in Iraq that was
spewing some toxic chemical (I don't know what it will be: dioxin, arsenic,
who knows) and that was what was causing all the birth defects, etc. that
these "eyewitnesses" have been reporting.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 14:45 01/26/03 -0500, you wrote:
>
>To all:
>
>
>And interesting report forwarded to me.
>I haven't thought much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably
>think some of it (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how
>unneighborly Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can
>expect other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with you".
>
>I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not shown a
>substantive reason to do so.
>Our govt says they have weapons of mass destruction, but there haven't any
>to be found.
>Our govt says "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really
>reliable sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
>information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously the
>info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would hear about
it).
>Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey inspectors, check other
>there", that too was a dud.
>The inspectors on their own found empty warheads in an abandoned storage
>facility that everyone forgot about, but that too shows very little for
>our govt's cause.
>Despite all its resources to prove what it is trying to say, our govt has
>not even come up with an Iraqi conspiracy, or document showing it plans
>harm on the US (at least at this point, has anyone heard of an Iraqi
>terrorist?.. Given our actions it may later become a self-fulfilling
prophecy.)
>Our govt says we cannot let Iraq continue because it might in the future
>create and use WOMD, that they are secretly planning all kinds of
>terrorism. This is also an unsubstantive argument - one that could be used
>on any country at all we don't like. Its an easy thing to do when you
>don't even need evidence to substantiate it
>And the other pat reasons given for war w/Iraq, are all artificial and are
>not even consistent with our treatment of other equally despotic or
>dangerous countries. Bush et al, has fixated on Iraq at this point with a
>rabid tunnel vision that is feverish.
>Lacking any viable foundation for such a war, he has been reduced to
>coming up with empty excuses that sound just like Hitler's justifications
>for invading Czhechoslovakia and Poland (we can let their people suffer
>under that regime and conditions, we need breathing room and stability in
>that region, they blew up our radio station, well ok not that last one but
>it is sure in coming ;-)
>
>I am thinking about Bush a little bit; what position would we be in had
>Gore won the election?
>When Clinton was in office we had economic success, shortly before/after
>Bush we hit a recession.
>Would the twin towers still be there if the relatively softer Gore was in
>office? Maybe, as the immediate tensions would not run as high, and our
>enemies thought there was some wiggle room to play with us.
>Would we be at the brink of a fabricated war? Somehow I don't think so.
>It was almost in the cards when Bush was elected, it is so obvious its
>embarrassing. He gets back at Iraq almost as a familial grudge, cause
>daddy was prevented from finishing the job.
>
>But some of the discussion on this newsgroup entailed socialists trying to
>control our war policy. I thought this report was comprehensive and
>informative, but I don't know if it is socialist driven, seems sincere to
>me. Others here might have a more thorough analysis.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:angels@ulster.net>Peggy
>To: <mailto:garyonthenet@yahoo.com>G Triest
>Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:28 AM
>Subject: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
>
>
>
>"Thorne Anderson is an..award-winning international photojournalist whose
>analysis of the situation in Iraq is sobering. I am forwarding this
>message..because I know you are concerned about the situation in Iraq
>and/or war in general. My hope (and I think, Thorne's) is that you can
>pass it to those you know.. for verification and action. Thorne's photos
>can be found at
>several websites via a Google search. His emailaddress is
><mailto:tivka@rocketmail.com>tivka@rocketmail.com, should you desire to
>contact him directly. Please contact him directly for permission to
>publish anything he has written."
>
>Regards, Diana
>Diana Swancutt
>Assistant Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
><mailto:diana.swancutt@yale.edu>diana.swancutt@yale.edu
>
>Subject: Eyewitness Account
>I am writing to let friends and family know that I am home in Belgrade
>after spending a month in Iraq. I don't plan to return to Iraq until late
>December or early January -- perhaps earlier if it appears that there will
>be an attack. I'm really committed to the Iraq issue, and I can't even
>think about other work in other places until there is some kind of
>resolution to the crisis in Iraq.
>
>Some of you have written to me with concerns for my safety in Iraq, but
>this was easily one of the safest assignments I have taken. In all my time
>in Iraq, in spite of an intense awareness of the threat of an impending
>attack by the United States, I never met a single Iraqi who had a harsh
>word for me. Iraqis are very good at
>distinguishing between the U.S. government and a U.S. citizen.
>
>Some friends and family are also already wondering why I would want to go
>back to Iraq, as I am committed and already anxious to do. It just seems
>to me that as a photojournalist, Iraq is where I might best play a role in
>making a small difference. I did some work for Newsweek and Time magazines
>while in Iraq, but that kind of work has really become secondary for me. I
>do what I can to influence (in admittedly small ways) what kinds of
>stories those big magazines do, but ultimately their stories are nearly
>worthless at confronting the inhumanity of American foreign policy in the
>Middle East.
>
> I will continue to work with Time and Newsweek (and with other
> corporate media) on stories that I don't find offensive, but the bulk of
> my efforts are now going into reaching alternative media and in
> supporting anti-war groups in the states. I hope I can find some time
> soon to come to the states for a speaking tour of sorts.
>
>There's a lot of talk about whether or not the U.S. will go to war with
>Iraq. What many people don't realize is that the U.S. is already at war in
>Iraq. I made two trips last month into the "no-fly zone" created by the
>U.S. with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better
>named the "only we fly" zone or the "we bomb" zone. "We" refers to the
>United States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled
>out years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). There is
>another no-fly zone in the north, which the U.S. says it maintains to
>protect the Kurds, but
>while the U.S. prevents Iraqi aircraft from entering the region, it does
>nothing to prevent or even to criticize Turkey (a U.S. ally) from flying
>into northern Iraq on numerous occasions to bomb Kurdish communities there.
>
>Turkey¹s bombing in Iraq is dwarfed by that of the U.S. The U.S. has been
>bombing Iraq on a weekly and sometimes daily basis for the past 12 years.
>There were seven civilians killed in these bombings about two weeks ago,
>and I¹m told of more civilians last week, but I'm sure that didn't get
>much or perhaps any press in the U.S.
>
> It is estimated that U.S. bombing has killed 500 Iraqis just since 1999.
> Actually I believe that number to be higher if you take into account the
> effects of the massive use of depleted uranium (DU) in the bombing. The
> U.S. has dropped well in excess of 300 tons of this radioactive material
> in Iraq (30 times the amount dropped in Kosovo) since 1991. Some of the
> DU is further contaminated with other radioactive particles including
> Neptunium and Plutonium 239, perhaps the most carcinogenic of all
> radioactive materials, and these particles are now beginning to show up
> in ground water samples.
>
>I spent a lot of time in overcrowded cancer wards in Iraqi hospitals.
>Since U.S. bombing began in Iraq, cancer rates have increased nearly six
>fold in the south, where U.S. bombing and consequent levels of DU are most
>severe. The most pronounced increases are in leukaemia and lung, kidney,
>and thyroid cancers associated with poisoning by heavy metals (such as DU).
>
>But the most lethal weapon in Iraq is the intense sanctions regime. The
>toll of the sanctions is one of the most under-reported stories of the
>past decade in the U.S. press. I have seen a few references to the
>sanctions recently in the U.S. press, but invariably they will subtly
>discredit humanitarian concerns by relying on Iraqi government statements
>rather than on the statistics of international
>agencies. My careless colleague at Time magazine, for example, recently
>reported that "the Iraqi government blames the sanctions for the deaths of
>thousands of children under the age of five." That's simply not true. The
>Iraqi government, in fact, blames the sanctions for the deaths of *more
>than a million* children under the age of five. But let's put that figure
>aside, for there's no need to rely solely on the Iraqi government, and
>let's refer instead to UNICEF and WHO reports which blame the sanctions
>directly for the
>excess deaths of approximately 500,000 children under the age of five, and
>nearly a million Iraqis of all ages.
>
>We all have an idea of the grief borne by the United States after the
>September 11 attacks. Employing the crude mathematics of casualty
>figures, multiply that grief by 300 and place it on the hearts of a
>country with one tenth the population of the United States and perhaps we
>can get a crude idea of what kind of suffering has already been inflicted
>on the Iraqi people in the past decade.
>
> The greatest killer of young children in Iraq is dehydration
> fromdiarrhoea caused by water-borne illnesses which are amplified by the
> intentional destruction of water treatment and sanitation facilities by
> the United States. The U.S. plan for destroying water treatment
> facilities and suppressing their rehabilitation was outlined just before
> the American entry into the 1991 Gulf War. The January, 1991, Dept. of
> Defense document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," goes into great
> detail about how
> the destruction of water treatment facilities and their subsequent
>impairment by the sanctions regime will lead to ³increased incidences, if
>not epidemics, of disease."
>
> I can report from my time in Iraq that all is going to plan. Cholera,
>hepatitis, and typhoid (previously almost unheard of in Iraq) are now
>quite common. Malaria and, of course, dysentery are rampant, and
>immunities to all types of disease are extremely low. Even those lucky
>children who manage to get a sufficient daily
>caloric intake risk losing it all to diarrhoea.
>
>Around 4,000 children die every month from starvation and preventable
>disease in Iraq -- a six-fold increase since pre-sanctions measurements.
>Treatment of illnesses in Iraq is complicated by the inability of
>hospitals to get the drugs they need through the wall of sanctions. In a
>hospital in Baghdad I encountered a mother with a very sick one-year- old
>child. After the boy¹s circumcision ceremony, the child was found to have
>a congenital disease which inhibits his blood¹s ability to clot, which
>results in excessive bleeding. The child encountered further complications
>when he took a fall and sustained a head injury which was slowly drowning
>his brain in his own blood. In any other country the boy would simply take
>regular doses of a drug called Factor 8, and he could then lead a
>relatively normal life. But an order for Factor 8 was put ³on hold² by the
>United
> States (prohibited for import), so the doctor, the mother, and I could
> only watch the child die.
>
> Much is made of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass
> destruction, but it is the sanctions, the use of depleted uranium, and
> the destruction of Iraq's health and sanitation infrastructure that are
> the weapons of greatest mass destruction in Iraq. The situation is so bad
> that Dennis Halliday, the former Humanitarian Coordinator for the UN in
> Iraq, took the dramatic step of resigning his position in protest at the
> sanctions. ³We are in the process of destroying an entire society,²
> Halliday wrote. ³It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal
> and immoral.² And Halliday isn¹t alone. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck,
> also resigned in protest and went so far as to
>describe the sanctions as genocide. These are not left-wing radicals.
>These are career bureaucrats who chose to throw away their careers at the
>UN rather than give tacit support to unethical policies driven by the
>United States.
>
>Being in Iraq showed me the utter devastation U.S. policy (war and
>sanctions) has wrought there and has given me a vision of what horror a
>new war would bring. And, of course, an attack on Iraq would be just the
>beginning of a terrifying chain of reactions throughout the Middle East
>and the rest of the world. Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel
>and Palestine in the past year, I am intensely aware of how the fragile
>politics and powers outside Iraq can be dramatically unsettled by a U.S.
>invasion within Iraq. It¹s easy to imagine an impending tragedy of
>enormous proportion before us, and I ask myself who must step up
>and take responsibility for stopping it.
>
>Clearly the U.S. government is the most powerful actor, but it is equally
>clear that we cannot turn aside and realistically expect the U.S.
>government to suddenly reverse the momentum it has created for war. So I
>feel the weight of responsibility on me, on U.S. citizens, to do whatever
>we can with our individually small but collectively powerful means to
>change the course of
>ur government's policy. I try to picture myself 10 or 20 years in the
>future, and I don't want to be in the position where I reflect on the
>enormous tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century and admit that I
>did nothing at all to recognize or prevent them.
>
>I don't know how this letter will sound to my friends and family who are
>living in the U.S., in a media environment which does very little to
>effectively question U.S. policy and almost nothing to encourage ordinary
>people to participate in making a change. I imagine this letter may sound
>like the political rant of some kind of extremist or anti-American
>dissident. But that's not how it feels to me. This doesn't feel like a
>political issue to me so much as it feels like a personal issue. I am
>appalled on a very human level at the suffering which U.S. policy is
>already inflicting and I am terrified by the prospects for an even more
>chaotic and violent future.
>
>And let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims. Those in the U.S. government
>pushing for war say they are doing so to promote democracy, to protect the
>rights of minorities, and to rid the region of weapons of mass
>destruction. But is the U.S. threatening to attack Saudi Arabia or a host
>of other U.S. allies which have similarly un-democratic regimes? How many
>of us would advocate going to war withTurkey over the brutal repression of
>its Kurdish minority and of the Kurds in Iraq? And do we expect the U.S.
>to bomb Israel or Pakistan which each have hundreds of nuclear weapons?
>Let¹s remember that leaders in the previous weapons inspection team in
>Iraq had declared that 95% of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction
>capabilities were destroyed. And let¹s not forget
>that in the 1980s, when Iraq was actually using chemical weapons against
>the Kurds and the Iranian army, the U.S. had nothing to say about it. On
>the contrary, at that time President Reagan sent a U.S. envoy to Iraq to
>normalize diplomatic relations, to support its war with Iran, and to offer
>subsidies for preferential trade with Iraq. That envoy arrived in Baghdad
>on the very day that the UN confirmed Iraq¹s use of chemical weapons, and
>he said absolutely nothing about it.
>
>That envoy, by the way, was Donald Rumsfeld. While Iraq probably has very
>little weaponry to actually threaten the United States, they do have oil.
>According to a recent survey of the West Qurna and Majnoon oil fields in
>southern Iraq, they may even have the world¹s largest oil reserves,
>surpassing those of Saudi Arabia.
>
>Let¹s be honest about U.S. policy aims and ask ourselves if we can, in
>good conscience, support continued destruction of Iraq in order to control
>its oil. I believe that most Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens,
>Purples or whatever -- would be similarly horrified by the effects of
>sanctions on the civilian population of Iraq if they could simply see the
>place, as I
>have, up close in its human dimensions; if they could see Iraq as a nation
>of 22 million mothers, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, mechanics, and
>window washers, and not simply as a single cartoonish villain. I genuinely
>believe that my view of Iraq is a view that would sit comfortably in
>mainstream America if most Americans could see Iraq with their own eyes
>and not simply
>through the eyes of a media establishment which has simply gotten used to
>ignoring the death and destruction which perpetuates American foreign
>policy aims.
>
>While the American media fixates on the evils of the ³repressive regime of
>Saddam Hussein,² both real and wildly exaggerated, how often are
>we reminded of the horrors of the last Gulf War, when more than 150,000
>were killed (former U.S. Navy Secretary, John Lehman, estimated 200,000).
>I simply don¹t believe that most Americans could come face-to-face with
>the Iraqi people and
>say from their hearts that they deserve another war.
>
>I believe in the fundamental values of democracy -- the protection of the
>most powerless among us from the whims of the most powerful. I believe in
>the ideals of the United Nations as a forum for solving international
>conflicts non-violently. These are mainstream values, and they are exactly
>the values that are most imperiled by present U.S. policy. That's why, as
>a citizen of the United States and as a member of humanity, I can't rest
>easily so long as I think there is something, anything, that I can do to
>make a difference.
>
> Love, Thorn

-------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER

To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org

URLs for Liberty Northwest:
Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:52:27 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
which masquerades as Iodine."

No, as calcium.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:04:53 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Thanks Robert.

Oops. Then what is it that masquerades as Iodine? Or is it even a
radioactive isotope of iodine that one should be worried about. And what
are the half-lives of Strontium and whatever it is that you want to take
iodine tablets for?

Lowell
Robert Goodman wrote, in part:
>"The stuff you need to worry about is stuff like Strontium
>which masquerades as Iodine."
>
>No, as calcium.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:17:38 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Gary,

No, the article I pointed to didn't address the condition of the people in
Iraq. It's pretty much generally assumed that the people in Iraq are in
bad shape. The question, however, is "Why are the people in Iraq in such
bad shape?" If it is because of the sanctions, then the Kurds should be in
just as bad shape as the people in Iraq (or at least there should be very
little difference). But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant mortality
rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it that
Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food" program
to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools, roads
and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?

Another data point that I didn't mention (because I wasn't--and won't--take
the time to search the internet for references) is that Saddam has been
caught shipping food and supplies out of Iraq to get hard currency. If
it's like most other smuggling operations, we only found a fraction of the
stuff that got smuggled (and chances are, it's actually better than most
since several of the countries that border Iraq wouldn't mind if the
sanctions don't work and have no problem profiting from a little smuggling).

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

Gary Triest wrote, in part:
>Thanx Lowell, this is the kind of critical feedback I was looking for.
>Yes the DU commentary seemed a bit off kilter. The stuff is good for
>transmission of the highest momentum transfers, like armour piercing
>ordinance, not for shrapnel.
>
>Your article though didn't address the condition of the people in Iraq
>proper though. It just talked about the boon the Kurds are having.
>So the reporter may still have a point there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:03:09 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> Or is it even a
> radioactive isotope of iodine that one should be worried about. And
what
> are the half-lives of Strontium and whatever it is that you want to
take
> iodine tablets for?
>
> Lowell

Of 90Sr, 28 years. Most iodine isotopes have half-lives of days or
hours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fw: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:58:55 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Thanks Robert. So with a half-life of, say, 4 days, in 12 days only 12.5%
of the original iodine isotope (that had the 4 day half-life) would be
left. That's why I seem to remember a two to three week window when you
would worry about it.

Lowell
At 10:03 01/27/03 -0500, you wrote:
> > Or is it even a
> > radioactive isotope of iodine that one should be worried about. And
>what
> > are the half-lives of Strontium and whatever it is that you want to
>take
> > iodine tablets for?
> >
> > Lowell
>
>Of 90Sr, 28 years. Most iodine isotopes have half-lives of days or
>hours.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:48:55 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...

> But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
> lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
> while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant
mortality
> rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
> sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it that
> Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food"
program
> to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
> been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools, roads
> and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?

Could be, but maybe not. Maybe a better explanation, if the article
Gary posted can be believed as even remotely accurate, might be that
the "dirty nuke" bombs that the US and Britain are dropping, aren't
dropping on the Kurds, but other Iraqi government and civilian
targets! Ever considered that possibility? Also, possibly the Kurds
are receiving covert military, medical and humanitarian aid from the
US and other sources that might help explain the discrepancy. As I
understand it judging from mainstream sources of news media, the Kurd
resistance is a key factor in the NEW Iraqi regime once the current
dictatorship is overthrown.

The allegation in the article that the US is even dropping dirty bombs
laced with degenerated nuclear waste is an abomination against US
foreign policy and certainly would amongst reasonable men be
considered along the lines of atrocities that any rogue state might
entertain. I am surprised you won't take the time to do some research
into this before placing all of the blame all on the current Iraqi
government.

This is outrageous if the US government is really doing any of this!
No wonder the US government's official policy is to oppose an
international court of justice for war crimes!

I'm not saying it's all true either. But if there is any truth to
this, then I'm not signing on to any of this aggression. Thankfully,
US opinion polls are starting to shift against the Shrub Regime's<tm>
'war no matter what the facts are' strategy. Aside from the UK, we're
really going to be standing alone on this one, and the consequences
could be disastrous! (As they should be!).

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:29:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest forwarded this message to everyone...

> To all: And interesting report forwarded to me.I haven't thought
> much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably think some of it
> (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how unneighborly
> Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can expect
> other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with
> you". I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not
> shown a substantive reason to do so.Our govt says they have weapons
> of mass destruction, but there haven't any to be found.Our govt says
> "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really reliable
> sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
> information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously
> the info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would
> hear about it).Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey
> inspectors, check other there", that too was a dud.

Gary, I've read and re-read this article that you posted a second
time. If even half of these atrocities are true, and sanctioned and
known by the US government and our intelligence apparatus, I am
shocked! This is far worse than even I suspected it might be.

I believe there is some veracity to this, if the statistics from the
UN can be believed to be accurate.

I truly hope many others on this list had the opportunity to really
read the contents of this article. You have to wonder who the "Rough
State" really is, or why the US government itself should not be
included on such a list?

Thanks a lot for making this available. I'll save it for future
reference as well. It ain't over until it's over!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:35:32 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest forwarded this message to everyone...

> To all: And interesting report forwarded to me.I haven't thought
> much of the current problems Iraq has, and probably think some of it
> (in regard to sanctions) is justified considering how unneighborly
> Iraq had been, i.e., if a country wars on others, it can expect
> other countries' govts to say "Hey we don't want to trade with
> you". I am against outright war w/Iraq however because we have not
> shown a substantive reason to do so.Our govt says they have weapons
> of mass destruction, but there haven't any to be found.Our govt says
> "Oh, but we know for sure, we have our sources . . . really reliable
> sources, trust us." But then they don't share the alleged
> information with anybody we know of (and if they did, then obviously
> the info was a shuck, cause if any WOMD were found we sure would
> hear about it).Of the times our govt did say publically "Hey
> inspectors, check other there", that too was a dud.

Gary, I've read and re-read this article that you posted a second
time. If even half of these atrocities are true, and sanctioned and
knX-Mozilla-Status: 0009nt and our intelligence apparatus, I am
shocked! This is far worse than even I suspected it might be.

I believe there is some veracity to this, if the statistics from the
UN can be believed to be accurate.

I truly hope many others on this list had the opportunity to really
read the contents of this article. You have to wonder who the "Rough
State" really is, or why the US government itself should not be
included on such a list?

Thanks a lot for making this available. I'll save it for future
reference as well. It ain't over until it's over!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:35:54 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...

> But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
> lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
> while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant
mortality
> rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
> sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it that
> Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food"
program
> to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
> been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools, roads
> and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?

Could be, but maybe not. Maybe a better explanation, if the article
Gary posted can be believed as even remotely accurate, might be that
the "dirty nuke" bombs that the US and Britain are dropping, aren't
dropping on the Kurds, but other Iraqi government and civilian
targets! Ever considered that possibility? Also, possibly the Kurds
are receiving covert military, medical and humanitarian aid from the
US and other sources that might help explain the discrepancy. As I
understand it judging from mainstream sources of news media, the Kurd
resistance is a key factor in the NEW Iraqi regime once the current
dictatorship is overthrown.

The allegation in the article that the US is even dropping dirty bombs
laced with degenerated nuclear waste is an abomination against US
foreign policy and certainly would amongst reasonable men be
considered along the lines of atrocities that any rogue state might
entertain. I am surprised you won't take the time to do some research
into this before placing all of the blame all on the current Iraqi
government.

This is outrageous if the US government is really doing any of this!
No wonder the US government's official policy is to oppose an
international court of justice for war crimes!

I'm not saying it's all true either. But if there is any truth to
this, then I'm not signing on to any of this aggression. Thankfully,
US opinion polls are starting to shift against the Shrub Regime's<tm>
'war no matter what the facts are' strategy. Aside from the UK, we're
really going to be standing alone on this one, and the consequences
could be disastrous! (As they should be!).

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Sobering Eyewittness Analysis of Iraq-IMPORTANT
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:01:17 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here's another article about Northern Iraq. From The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/061801/rubin061801.html

Greetings again Frank,
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Gary Triest...
>
> > But, to take one example, the Kurds have a slightly
> > lower infant mortality rate than they did in 1989 (before the gulf war),
> > while the people in the rest of Iraq have almost twice the infant
mortality
> > rate of 1989. What's the most likely explanation? Is it that the
> > sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq but not the Kurds? Or is it
that
> > Saddam has been using the resources he gets from the "Oil for food"
program
> > to build up his military, his WMD, and his palaces while the Kurds have
> > been using those resources to feed people, build hospitals, schools,
roads
> > and infrastructure that makes people's lives better?
>
>Could be, but maybe not. Maybe a better explanation, if the article
>Gary posted can be believed as even remotely accurate, might be that
>the "dirty nuke" bombs that the US and Britain are dropping, aren't
>dropping on the Kurds, but other Iraqi government and civilian
>targets! Ever considered that possibility? Also, possibly the Kurds
>are receiving covert military, medical and humanitarian aid from the
>US and other sources that might help explain the discrepancy. As I
>understand it judging from mainstream sources of news media, the Kurd
>resistance is a key factor in the NEW Iraqi regime once the current
>dictatorship is overthrown.

Let me see. Gary posted an article by someone with no apparent medical,
scientific, or other similar expertise. Therefore, he took at face value
the claims made by Iraqi doctors or whoever (probably accompanied by
government informers, so the question of whether he got the truth or a
government "line" is not even explored). And never mind that there are
some other pieces of information that show that these claims are
unlikely. Frank seems to think that this theory is a "better explanation"
which just needs a few more leaps of faith to keep the theory on
track. The first leap is that the US and Britain "might" be dropping
"dirty nuke" bombs which no one in Congress or the Pentagon, or the UK
parliament (presumably through at least two administrations) seems to have
noticed we were building. The second leap is that such "dirty nuke" bombs
even make sense from a military point of view. The third is that such
"dirty nuke" bombs could be deployed without someone in the press finding
out about it and screaming bloody murder.

>The allegation in the article that the US is even dropping dirty bombs
>laced with degenerated nuclear waste is an abomination against US
>foreign policy and certainly would amongst reasonable men be
>considered along the lines of atrocities that any rogue state might
>entertain. I am surprised you won't take the time to do some research
>into this before placing all of the blame all on the current Iraqi
>government.
>
>This is outrageous if the US government is really doing any of this!
>No wonder the US government's official policy is to oppose an
>international court of justice for war crimes!

Well, why not. If Frank is going to make all the leaps of faith regarding
the military deploying "dirty nukes", why not go from an "allegation in the
article" in one paragraph to "This is outrageous...No wonder the US
government's official policy..."

>I'm not saying it's all true either. But if there is any truth to
>this, then I'm not signing on to any of this aggression.

So, you're not saying it's all true, but you're plenty ready to get all
worked up about it. And why would you bother saying that "if there is any
truth" that you aren't "signing on to any of this aggression" when as near
as I can tell, you aren't "signing on to" what you call "aggression"
regardless? I mean, I can't actually believe that you've changed your mind
and you'll now support cleaning out Iraq if these allegations about US and
Britain "dirty nukes" turn out to be false.

> Thankfully,
>US opinion polls are starting to shift against the Shrub Regime's<tm>
>'war no matter what the facts are' strategy. Aside from the UK, we're
>really going to be standing alone on this one, and the consequences
>could be disastrous! (As they should be!).

You mean, aside from the UK, and Kuwait, and Qatar and Turkey and Jordan
and Poland and Romania and Italy and Spain and.... BTW. I suspect that
the military strength of several of these European nations are higher than
the military strength of France and possibly greater than that of Germany.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: HR 124 Handgun Licensing andRegistration Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:01:14 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Lowell!

Lowell Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...

> But if HR 124 passes and is strongly identified with the
> Democrats, they will be toast in their districts--even if they voted
> against it.
> The rest of my discussion below about the chances of the AW ban passing
> could be summarized as follows: if we're going stop it, we'll have to stop
> it in the House. I don't like saying that. But it's the truth.

Ok, I see your point, and I have to agree. I also don't believe expending
too much energy at the expense of missing the chance of defeating
continuation of the AW Ban is a good idea.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fundamentals of Liberty (fwd)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:49:12 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: libNW <libnw@immosys.com>

Fundamentals of Liberty: Law and Liberty in America

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Halbrooks/halbrooks13.html

by Jacob Halbrooks

The American Revolution was unique among wars because it resulted in more
than a
mere change of government; it was a revolution of ideology. New ideas had
been
taking root in America . Ideas that said a man should be free to live his
life
as he so chooses. Ideas that said that government is bound by the same rules
of
nature as everyone else. The main idea, of course, was liberty. The
philosophy
of classical liberalism drove men to leave their wives and children at home
and
pick up a rifle, well knowing that they might never see their loved ones
again.
The United States of America was born, not so that one privileged class
could
better rule over other people, but in order that people could be free of
such
unjust government control. Unfortunately, the spirit of the revolution was
never
brought to its logical end and has thus waned in America, to the point that
now
the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence pales in
comparison to
the tyranny people face today.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it
is a
dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington's words embody
the
classical liberal attitude toward government: it is at best a necessary
evil.
The only proper function of government, according to the Founding Fathers,
is
the protection of life and liberty. The sovereignty of government is solely
derived from a voluntary union of people, and the same natural laws of
ethics
bind the politician as much as the farmer or merchant. This idea was a
fundamental change from the foundation of governments in the past, which
generally proclaimed the state to be the source of law. The individual holds
the
same natural rights whether a government exists or not, and the Founding
Fathers
sought to secure these liberties by explicit limitations on government. This
was
indeed a new experiment, but one that has proved that no matter how
initially
constrained tyranny is, so long as people mistake it as just, it will
eventually
grow larger.

It says a lot about the general temperament around 1787 that the
Constitution,
which was the framework for a more powerful central government than provided
under the Articles of Confederation, required much effort on its supporters'
behalf to pass. Patriots such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee
vehemently
opposed the Constitution, and eventually the famous compromise between
supporters and opponents took shape in the Bill of Rights. The most popular
argument against including the Bill of Rights was that it was superfluous,
in
that the Constitution already provided no authority for violating the rights
therein. However, such rights as freedom of the press, the right to bear
arms,
and the right to a trial by jury were deemed too important to rest on
interpretation, and they were provided for explicitly.

Clearly, much has changed since the Revolution. Now, people need the
government's permission to buy a firearm, and only those firearms that it
permits. Trial by jury is a farce, as juries are told they must not question
the
legitimacy of the government's law. As "artists" defend their tax-funded
paintings of feces-smeared crucifixes as freedom of speech, about half of
the
people's wealth is confiscated in taxation. A central bank is the monopoly
provider of fiat money, which it inflates to benefit bankers and politicians
at
the expense of the people. And all the while, we are told to be grateful for
the
freedom the government allows us. This downfall in liberty is the result of
a
shift in philosophy of the people from classical liberalism to modern
liberalism.

The modern theory of government, which goes almost unchallenged in all
mainstream forums, is that government is a legitimate means for organizing
society. In the revolutionary era, debate concerned whether government was
necessary at all for a certain function and how it would affect the people's
liberties. Now the debate is not if the government should be involved in
something, but rather what it should be doing about it. We hear on one side
that
the government should hold Social Security payments itself, and we hear from
the
other side that a portion of these payments should be invested in stocks.
But we
rarely hear anyone submit that Social Security is not a proper function of
government to begin with. People are not asking the right questions anymore.

Concomitant with the increase of government power and infringement of the
rights
of the people has been the acceptance of democracy as a valid source of law.
Natural law has been replaced with majority rule. The ramifications of such
a
shift in philosophy is that individual rights are less secure. If law is
dependent only upon the will of a majority of people, then rights are
meaningless.

Natural law may seem an anachronistic concept to many people today who
deride it
as unscientific. But natural law is precisely science. Natural laws are
those
unchanging relationships that we observe in the world around us. They are
freely
accessible to all and must be found by observation, reason, and
experimentation.
The natural laws of forces and mechanics are included in the science of
physics.
The natural laws of matter are included in the science of chemistry.
Likewise,
the natural laws of human action are included in the science of economics,
and
the natural laws of man's proper action is included in the science of
ethics. It
is through the study of ethics, that is, proper and improper human action,
that
one can define what rights men have. Ethics includes the code of
criminality,
and it is for this reason that the trial by jury was provided for in the
Bill of
Rights. It is a check on the government's power, so that the power to
interpret
and apply the natural laws of ethics would rest in the people and not the
state.
This can clearly be seen in the language employed in the eighteenth century:
law
was to be discovered, not devised. On the importance of trial by jury,
nineteenth century legal scholar Lysander Spooner noted, "The question then,
between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is
simply
a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what the
powers
of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be
vested in one or the other of the parties themselves- the government, or the
people." Spooner argued that juries must necessarily judge upon the justice
of
the law as well as the specifics of the case, and he thus supported jury
nullification for such clearly unethical laws as the Fugitive Slave Act.

The modernly accepted notion of trial by jury, of the people solely judging
according to the state's laws, is based on the idea that law is dependent on
government. If law is dependent on government though, so too are the
people's
rights, since ethics necessarily includes both criminal law and rights. Of
course, the government proclaiming itself to have a monopoly on proper
ethical
laws does not make it actually have it, but if it uses the threat of
violence to
back its claim, few people are going to argue. Similarly, the government
could
proclaim that gravity no longer exists; it wouldn't be true, but it could
use
its power to stop scientists from conducting physical experiments to prove
them
wrong.

Once it becomes commonly accepted among the people that ethics are not
discovered but rather legislated, no liberties can be held secure. The
questions
people ask, for example, are not whether taxation is a legitimate means for
funding services and projects, but rather what level taxation should be.
People
ask what interest rate the central bank should lend money at, not whether a
central bank should exist at all.

This regrettable shift in philosophy, from one where the rights of the
people
are provided in man's inherent nature to one where man's rights are subject
to
the whim of the majority, has occurred because of many reasons. One is
fundamental to the Constitution and government itself. This is that no
government can completely be based upon voluntary cooperation, because the
Constitution is not a true contract. It was ratified by a vote, thus
contradicting its own statement of being based upon a voluntary union, since
there were many people who did not wish to live under it. With this
beginning,
it was only a matter of time before the logic of its ratification was
applied to
other areas. If only votes were necessary for its ratification, then only
votes
were necessary to decide whether the government should build railroads in
the
West or war with Mexico . The bottom line is that, no matter what the best
intent of the Founding Fathers was, we cannot rely upon the Constitution or
the
present federal government to secure our liberties. In a world where the
prevailing thought is that liberties are government privileges, true freedom
must be secured some other way.

Jacob Halbrooks has a B.S. in electrical engineering from Tufts University
and
is currently a graduate student at Dartmouth College. He has two life goals:
to
purchase at least one firearm per year, and to incite the Big Change. His
personal website is Jacob's Libertarian Press
http://www.geocities.com/libertarian_press/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fundamentals of Liberty (fwd)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:04:38 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

"Ed Fischang" <efischan@crcwnet.com> kindly posted

Fundamentals of Liberty: Law and Liberty in America

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Halbrooks/halbrooks13.html

by Jacob Halbrooks

Including:

"If law is dependent on government though, so too are the people's
rights, since ethics necessarily includes both criminal law and rights.
Of
course, the government proclaiming itself to have a monopoly on proper
ethical
laws does not make it actually have it, but if it uses the threat of
violence to
back its claim, few people are going to argue. Similarly, the government
could
proclaim that gravity no longer exists; it wouldn't be true, but it
could use
its power to stop scientists from conducting physical experiments to
prove them
wrong."

Heh. I'd like to know what experiments could be done to try to disprove
the "natural laws of ethics".

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: COURT URGED TO REJECT FORFEITURE LAW
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:21:05 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>

***** PLEASE FOWARD*****

COURT URGED TO REJECT FORFEITURE LAW
--------------------
VOTERS APPROVED MEASURE 3 TO STOP POLICE
FROM SEIZING PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER
WAS CONVICTED

By Charles E. Beggs-- The Associated Press

SALEM, Oregon--- Law enforcement authorities urged the state Court of
Appeals on Monday to overturn a voter-passed law that bars police from
seizing and selling property tied to illegal activity unless there is a
conviction.

The court heard arguments on measure 3, approved 2-1 in November 2000,
which has sharply reduced forfeitures of cash and goods that had raised
substantial money for police agencies.

The constitutional change put new restrictions on civil forfeitures, a
process used to acquire assets linked to suspected drug dealing even if
no one ended up being convicted.

Opponents want the law overturned on technical grounds. They say it
made multiple revisions that, under the state constitution's rules,
should have been voted on as separate amendments.

Marion County Circuit Judge Pamela Abernethy disagreed, upholding the
law in 2001 on grounds that it's provisions were closely related.

Forfeitures reported by law enforcement agencies dropped by 75 percent
in 2001, after the law took effect, the state Criminal Justice
Commission says.

Lincoln County and an interagency narcotics team in the county are
appealing the ruling.

Robert Bovet, an attorney for county argued that the law's provisions
are not closely related. For example, he told the appeals court,
there's little connection between requiring a conviction for forfeiture
and a restriction on using the proceeds.

Police and prosecutors say the law hinders a valuable anticrime tool
because forfeited property, including cars, houses and cash, has been
used to raise funds for new drug investigations.

Measure 3 also required that 40 percent of the forfeited money must go
to drug treatment programs.

Assistant Attorney General Mary Hazel Williams urged the appeals judges
to uphold the law. The court shouldn't strike down a constitutional
change "unless it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt" that the change is
invalid, she said.

"You could argue that the voters wanted the funds to go to the root of
the problem," Williams said of the money going to drug treatment.

As the public's lawyer, the attorney general must defend laws passed by
the voters.

The Oregon Supreme Court has struck down several voter- approved
constitutional amendments in recent years, citing the ban on rolling
unrelated changes into one measure, instead of separate ballot
propositions. Measures to limit legislative terms and to require
compensation of landowners whose property values are reduced by
government regulation are among those overturned on those grounds.

--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fundamentals of Liberty
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:28:14 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Greetings again Ed!

Ed Fischang posted...

Fundamentals of Liberty: Law and Liberty in America
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Halbrooks/halbrooks13.html
by Jacob Halbrooks

Excellent article Ed! Very historically accurate in terms of the
philosophical nature of the revolution and rational behind it!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - February 10, 2003 Issue
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:52:18 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Special Media Issue!

The following articles from the February 10, 2003 issue of The New
American are now available online.

----------------------------------------
The February 10, 2003 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/02-10-2003/
----------------------------------------

>From the Editor
Americans have more than one TV channel and more than one newspaper.
Yet
they all seem to parrot the same Establishment line.

Bread and Circuses
Mass entertainment focusing on emotional and sensory stimulation has
put
Americans in danger of suffering the fate of the Romans, who
entertained
themselves into oblivion.

The Power of Truth
The Insiders' Achilles' heel is that they must contain the truth in
order
to protect their schemes.

----------------------------------------

NEW VIDEO - Behind the Big News
A perfect supplement to this special media issue of The New American!
This
powerful and fast-paced video examines who controls the media, the
subversive agenda it promotes, and an effective strategy to overcome
this
assault. Available in VHS and DVD formats. (2003, 59 min.)

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
e-mail address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:56:11 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: January 29, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

State of the Union speech laid out agenda
of 'global welfare and global warfare,' Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush laid out an agenda in his State of
the
Union speech that will make most Americans worse off than before,
Libertarians say, by expanding government spending and increasing the
likelihood of war with Iraq.

"Americans who were hoping for peace and prosperity instead got a plan
for global welfare and global warfare," said Geoffrey Neale,
Libertarian Party national chair. "Confiscating more money from
struggling American workers is the worst prescription for a sputtering
economy, and waging perpetual war will never achieve perpetual peace."

During his hour-long State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Bush
unveiled plans for approximately a half-trillion dollars in new or
expanded social programs; said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had missed
his "final chance" to avoid a U.S.-led attack by continuing to thwart
U.N. weapons inspectors; and cited threats posed by Iran and North
Korea.

But Libertarians say more government spending and more war is the
exact
opposite of what America needs.

"The mind-boggling array of government programs laid out by President
Bush has to be paid for by someone, and that someone is the ordinary
Americans who can least afford it," Neale said.

The presidential wish list included $400 billion for prescription drug
coverage for seniors; $600 million to remedy drug addiction; $6
billion
for vaccines against bioterror attacks; $1.2 billion to fund
government
research into hydrogen-powered cars; $450 million to mentor children;
and millions to hire more "citizen volunteers" for the USA Freedom
Corps and to continue Bush's "faith-based initiative" to funnel tax
money to churches and charities.

"But Bush's impulse to spend tax money promiscuously didn't stop
there," Neale noted. "He even made Clintonesque appeals for more money
for homeless shelters; to protect abused women; to 'provide
companionship' for the elderly; and even to prevent forest fires.
Apparently there's no aspect of American life that this self-described
conservative doesn't want to federalize.

"Unfortunately, Bush doesn't want to limit the spending of American
money to, well, America," said Neale, noting that Bush proposed
spending $10 billion for anti-AIDS programs in Africa; expanding
international food programs; and even using U.S. tax money to educate
children in Afghanistan.

"It's clear that under the Bush administration, welfare has gone
global," Neale said. "And this 'compassionate conservative' shows no
mercy at all for his fellow Americans who have to pay the bill."

Regarding Iraq, Neale said that Bush failed to present the one
legitimate reason that would justify going to war: self-defense.

"Bush pointed out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who
represses his own people, and that the Iraqi leader possesses or is
trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction – both of which seem to
be true," Neale said. "But the fact remains that Iraq has not
attacked the United States, nor has Bush presented the American people
with any specific, credible evidence that Hussein is linked to the
September 11 terrorist attacks. So launching a war against Iraq is
unnecessary for self-defense, and therefore totally unjustifiable."

While acknowledging that Bush claimed that the United States has
"secret communications" that show a link between Iraq and al Qaeda,
Neale noted that foreign policy experts say such an alliance is
extremely unlikely.

Neale said: "As John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt point out in
the January/February issue of Foreign Policy magazine: 'Osama bin
Laden
is a radical (Muslim) fundamentalist, and he detests secular leaders
like Saddam. . . Relations between Saddam and al Qaeda have always
been quite poor.' The scholars conclude there is 'no credible evidence
that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks' on September
11.

"If Bush has evidence to the contrary, he has a solemn obligation to
show it to Congress and to the American people before taking even one
more step toward war."

But what about Bush's prediction that Saddam himself would initiate a
chemical or biological attack against the United States?

"That's extremely unlikely as well," Neale said. "What Saddam values
above all else is his own survival, and he knows that attacking the
United States would lead to a devastating counterattack and the loss
of
his own life," Neale said. "Moreover, Saddam had the opportunity to
douse U.S. troops with such weapons during the Gulf War, and declined.
So we can assume that he was deterred by the same thing that would
deter him in the future: the belief that he would be obliterated by
the
U.S. response."

The best way to protect Americans from war with Iraq or with any other
nation is to bring U.S. troops home and use them for defensive
purposes
only, Libertarians say.

"The real lesson from Bush's speech is that big government causes more
problems than it solves, both overseas and at home," Neale said.
"America can become more prosperous and more secure only if we declare
an end to global warfare and global welfare."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:36:16 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Press release says

> "Bush pointed out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who
> represses his own people, and that the Iraqi leader possesses or is
> trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction - both of which seem
> to be true," Neale said. "But the fact remains that Iraq has not
> attacked the United States, nor has Bush presented the American
> people with any specific, credible evidence that Hussein is linked
> to the
> September 11 terrorist attacks. So launching a war against Iraq
> is unnecessary for self-defense, and therefore totally
> unjustifiable."

So, is the Libertarian Party taking an anti-United-Nations
stance?

If Saddam is not in compliance, warm words would not
win him over.

Regards
Tim

Patterns of the Soul
Gideon: So I'm giving you a chance

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:03:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to everyone...

LP Press release stated:
> > So launching a war against Iraq
> > is unnecessary for self-defense, and therefore totally
> > unjustifiable."

You replied:
> So, is the Libertarian Party taking an anti-United-Nations
> stance?

I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however the Party's pledge
for membership includes affirming: "I do not believe in or advocate
the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social
goals." All members who join the national party must sign that pledge
which is conditional for membership.

Therefore, I assume it doesn't matter whether or not the United
Nations itself initiates force, or whether it is only the US and a few
allies who initiate force, which in either case, is contrary to the
Libertarian Party's position on aggression.

On the other hand, for anyone believing that the United Nations is a
legitimate world government, then perhaps the UN could fall back on
the 1991 Gulf War as an excuse, providing that war did not end and was
still continuing in some form. The UN has not authorized the use of
force in any case.

It is difficult even with the above stretch, that the US government,
even acting alone alongside Britain and other "allies", could justify
the use of force UNLESS the UN declares it and ratifies it. The only
way around this, as the LP article points out, is if the US, Britain,
or allies can prove that any terrorist attacks that have been made,
originated from or where supported by Iraq. I don't believe that has
been done either.

> If Saddam is not in compliance, warm words would not
> win him over.

Again, only the UN could even possibly qualify, acting as the world
government, with alleged jurisdiction over individual states.

Libertarians, likely including the Libertarian Party of the US, would
be most likely to demand evidence that either Iraq has participated in
ongoing or specific terrorist attacks, or that credible evidence
exists that such an attack is imminently planned for execution.

It's also interesting, for those who really believe that the UN is a
legitimate government, and all member states are under its
jurisdiction, any rogue attack by one or two member states (Britain
and the US) against another state (Iraq) would ALSO be a violation of
the UN Charter. If the United Nations is consistent, such an attack
would be condemned, and even sanctions applied against the US and
Britain for launching such an attack.

Also, in all fairness and consistency, the International Court of
Justice should review the case, including indictments against those
who initiated the aggression (in this case George W. Bush, Colin
Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tony Blaire, Jack Straw and a host of
others complicit in initiating such aggression.

Of course we both know, the later would likely never see the light of
day.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:45:58 -0000
From: "Tim Bedding" <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

> I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however the Party's
> pledge for membership includes affirming: "I do not believe in or
> advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving
> political or social
> goals." All members who join the national party must sign that
> pledge which is conditional for membership.

In which case, the Libertarian Party should be consistent
and disband the police who initiate force. It should also
say that it wants to withdraw from the United Nations
because the UN charter permits force to make people
comply with the resolutions passed.

Regards
Tim

The Fall of Night
Ivanova: Because sometimes peace is another word
for surrender

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:26:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Tim Bedding <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com> wrote:
> Frank
>
> > I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however
> the Party's
> > pledge for membership includes affirming: "I do
> not believe in or
> > advocate the initiation of force as a means of
> achieving
> > political or social
> > goals." All members who join the national party
> must sign that
> > pledge which is conditional for membership.
>
> In which case, the Libertarian Party should be
> consistent
> and disband the police who initiate force. It should
> also
> say that it wants to withdraw from the United
> Nations
> because the UN charter permits force to make people
> comply with the resolutions passed.

The police (when acting appropriately) do not initiate
force; they defend against initiations of force.

As for withdrawing from the UN, that is a "no duh."

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: State of the Union speech
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:55:31 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <tim.bedding@polyhedra.com>

Greetings again Tim!

Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...

I Previously wrote:
> > I can't speak for the Libertarian Party, however the Party's
> > pledge for membership includes affirming: "I do not believe in or
> > advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving
> > political or social
> > goals." All members who join the national party must sign that
> > pledge which is conditional for membership.

To which, you replied:
> In which case, the Libertarian Party should be consistent
> and disband the police who initiate force. It should also
> say that it wants to withdraw from the United Nations
> because the UN charter permits force to make people
> comply with the resolutions passed.

Libertarians do not necessarily renounce all force. Pacifists libertarians
might, but the majority believe the use of force for the purpose of
self-defence is a legitimate and rightful use of force. You do have the
right to defend yourself against aggressors by such as rapists, burglars, or
those who commit fraud or theft against you.

The legitimacy of a police force, rightfully constituted and applied, is to
aid individuals in defending themselves. Therefore, in such a way, the
police would not be initiating force, but rather responding to aggression,
or aggressive force committed against individuals as victims of aggression.
True, in our society, the police *DO* initiate force against others, even
when such "crimes" have no victims, which is what libertarians rightfully
oppose.

The way to move in the direction of limiting the police to their rightful
role, is to dismantle the laws which define crime, including those
victimless crimes such as individuals consenting to engage in various
activities on their own free will. In the absence of such laws, the police
would have no authority to initiate force in such instances.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "America's drug war is so stupid...............
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:44:32 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************
http://www.cpop.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

Tired of the same old drug reform discussion lists getting you down?

Are you the kind that likes a list where most anything goes?

Do you dislike labels?

Are you looking for a list where the common bond is the abolition
of the War on Drugs?

Then we may have a list for you.

Maybe not?

Are you prepared to put aside your differences on other issues?

If so be prepared to meet a list of Yippies throwing pies at
capitalists;
a list with Christian Patriots pointing out the unConstitutionality of
the Drug War; a Wizard who believes in a different sort of healing;
our friends the dear Revs of the pot church in Canada; our man
from the Alabama Gadmans Militia; our Intelligence officer Mr.
Carl Worden of SOM. You may meet our field commander
and counter-terrorism expert from the Greenpanthers. Of course
we have D Paul of CRRH.org. Not to mention all the folks I
missed from the left to the right. Join us if you can tolerate all
speech, including that which you may despise.

This is not your parents drug reform discussion list [DRCTalk] folks :-)

PLEASE FORWARD

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition

Subscribe: cp3-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

For Subscription Info and to modify your settings, web postings,etc

Go to the CP site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

CPOP web site: http://www.cpop.org

http://www.greenpanthers.org
--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Double-taxation of Social Security.
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:44:11 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

In case you're ready for a break from talking (or thinking) about the
Columbia tragedy.

Practically every Democrat who is anybody and almost every mainstream
publication has repeated the claim that Social Security is double-taxed
because the dollars that go into Social Security are included in the total
on which the individual pays income taxes.

The Truth: Social Security is taxed the same way as a Roth IRA. The money
you put into either one is taxed (before you put it in, so to speak). But,
you don't pay taxes when it comes out. (And that includes it's
"growth".) The traditional IRA, the Keogh, the SIMPLE IRA, the 401k, etc.
generally operate the other way--you put in tax-free and get taxed when it
comes out. The exception is in the case of Social Security benefits which
are taxed if you are still earning more than a certain amount of
income. If I recall correctly, it was the Democrat-controlled Congress
which passed the law (which Clinton signed) that made Social Security
taxable under those conditions. I don't hear any of them proposing to
repeal that "middle class tax cut" which turned into a retroactive tax
increase.

However, there is still another qualification. The "employer contribution"
of the Social Security "tax" is not taxed because the "employer
contribution" is an employee expense to the employer. The employer pays
taxes on "profits" which is another way of saying "expenses" subtracted
from "revenues". (I believe that employer matches to 401k and similar
plans are also company expenses which are not taxed.) So, in the ordinary
case, social security is only "half-taxed" and in the case of the SS
recipient who still earns enough income to be affected, it is up to
"one-and-a-half" taxed. (Half-taxed going in and up to fully taxed coming
out.) Again, I don't hear any Democrat proposing to repeal this unfair
"one-and-a-half" tax that they pushed through.

Now, of course, if the Social Security Tax really is a tax and that little
letter I get from the Social Security Administration listing all my (and my
employers') contributions to "my account" is bogus, then Democrats are
really admitting that Social Security isn't the "retirement program"
they've been claiming for all this time.

So which is it? A tax or a retirement program? If it's a retirement
program, it's taxed fairly (with the exception noted above). If it's a tax
to pay for benefits that I'll never see, then forget the "double taxation",
I want out altogether and thank you Democrats for finally admitting the
truth.

Lowell C. Savage
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
It's the freedom, stupid!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Quality Painting
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 05:22:31 -0600
From: georgetown97@hotmail.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

[Image]

All our mailings are sent complying to the proposed H.R. 3113 Unsolicited
Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2000. Please see the bottom of this
message for further information and removal instructions.

Professional painting of your home, apartment building or office adds to
your investment in several important ways.

First, The money spent on professional painting can make a dramatic
difference in the resale or renting potential of your property.

Secondly, you are assured that your structure is thoroughly protected from
the elements by proper preparation of old and new surfaces, and correct
application of undercoating and finishes.

Third, Professional painters have the skills and knowledge to assure that
your job is done right. Their reputation is built from the fine quality of
their work.

5 Great reasons to hire a professional:

1. Jobs finished on schedule
2. Protects your investment
3. Increases value of property
4. Quality work
5. Guaranteed satisfaction

Click on the below link for more information:

click here

Thank you for your time:
Georgetown Contractors, Inc.
P.O. box 629
brandy wine, md, 20613 USA
301-455-8199

To be removed from our mailing list click the link below:

remove me

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ex-Police Officer Gets 6 1/2 Years
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 13:40:56 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
"12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com"
<12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>, unclesamsucks@yahoogroups.com,
APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>, Lee Berger <LawBerger@aol.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>

Ex-Police Officer Gets 6 1/2 Years

He admitted to taking drugs and money from dealers while on duty!!!!!

The Associated Press

SEATTLE, Wash.----- A former police officer who admitted shaking down
drug dealers for dope and cash while on duty has been sentenced to 6 1/2
years in federal prison.

"From the bottom of my heart, my apologies go to my family, the citizens
and the Seattle Police Department," Steve Slaughter said in U.S.
District Court on Friday, reading from a statement as his wife and other
supporters looked on.

Slaughter, 27, pleaded guilty in November to charges of possession of
heroin with intent to distribute, distribution of heroin, extortion and
possession of a firearm.

He said he realized he misused his position of power and disgraced his
uniform. After his arrest, the department took the unusual step of
destroying the badge he had been assigned.

"My actions are inexcusable," Slaughter told U.S. District Judge Thomas
Zilly.

Slaughter had faced a possible life term and fines of as much as
$250,000.

In seeking a lighter sentence, defense attorney Brian Tsuchida said
Slaughter's involvement with drug dealers and users was "baffling,"
Slaughter gained nothing from the relationships, didn't didn't earn
large amounts of cash and didn't try to get sexual favors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Diskin sought an 18-month sentence for
Slaughter, plus five years because he was carrying his service revolver
at the time of the offenses.

Zilly said a sentence at the low end of the scale was appropriate. He
said he will recommend drug treatment for Slaughter.

--
"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************
http://www.cpop.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

Tired of the same old drug reform discussion lists getting you down?

Are you the kind that likes a list where most anything goes?

Do you dislike labels?

Are you looking for a list where the common bond is the abolition
of the War on Drugs?

Then we may have a list for you.

Maybe not?

Are you prepared to put aside your differences on other issues?

If so be prepared to meet a list of Yippies throwing pies at
capitalists;
a list with Christian Patriots pointing out the unConstitutionality of
the Drug War; a Wizard who believes in a different sort of healing;
our friends the dear Revs of the pot church in Canada; our man
from the Alabama Gadmans Militia; our Intelligence officer Mr.
Carl Worden of SOM. You may meet our field commander
and counter-terrorism expert from the Greenpanthers. Of course
we have D Paul of CRRH.org. Not to mention all the folks I
missed from the left to the right. Join us if you can tolerate all
speech, including that which you may despise.

This is not your parents drug reform discussion list [DRCTalk] folks :-)

PLEASE FORWARD

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention to just

how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs." -- Jim Hightower
****************************************************************

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition

Subscribe: cp3-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

For Subscription Info and to modify your settings, web postings,etc

Go to the CP site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cp3

CPOP web site: http://www.cpop.org

http://www.greenpanthers.org
--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [Fwd: [CPOP] home despot]
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:28:49 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CPOP] home despot
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:15:12 -0500
From: ARON KAY <pieman@pieman.org>
Reply-To: cp3@yahoogroups.com
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>

you'll love this onehttp://www.homedespot.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition

"America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention
to just how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs."
-- Jim Hightower

Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition-Join us!-Link Below
Http://www.cpop.org

Greenpanthers http://www.greenpanthers.org
The only no compromise pot organization ( Direct Action!)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: CCLNews> [Fwd: [CPOP] home despot]
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 05:49:25 -0800
From: "Jack Lancaster" <lancaster@ccountry.com>
To: "News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw" <News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
"libnw" <libnw@immosys.com>, "Paul Freedom" <nepal@teleport.com>
CC: "\"Babel Magazine\"" <babelmagazine@adelphia.net>

The elitist control the drug trade and have since the China drug trade
England started. The drug war is to knock out conpetetion to the
international cartels control of drugs....Jacl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Freedom" <nepal@teleport.com>
To: "libnw" <libnw@immosys.com>; "News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw"
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:28 PM
Subject: CCLNews> [Fwd: [CPOP] home despot]

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [CPOP] home despot
> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:15:12 -0500
> From: ARON KAY <pieman@pieman.org>
> Reply-To: cp3@yahoogroups.com
> To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
>
> you'll love this onehttp://www.homedespot.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition
>
> "America's drug war is so stupid that if you pay close attention
> to just how stupid it is -- it'll drive you to use drugs."
> -- Jim Hightower
>
> Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition-Join us!-Link Below
> Http://www.cpop.org
>
> Greenpanthers http://www.greenpanthers.org
> The only no compromise pot organization ( Direct Action!)
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: energy tech displacement and global warming (was foreign policy)
Date: 05 Feb 2003 10:37:30 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 07:50, Frank Reichert wrote:
All I'm going to say further on the cost of solar, is that I looked at
it for my house this summer, and the cheapest I could find was nearly
30K to replace my grid usage. It'd take about 30 years to recover the
cost. Too much for Joe Average, IMO. Supplementing w/solar is not much
different, the ROI is still too long.
...

> RE: Airline restructuring, you wrote:
> > IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
> > carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
> > is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
> > you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
> > ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
> > planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
> > mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
> > maintenance cost savings).
>
> I own stock in Delta, Continental, Northwest, United and American. All
> of these airlines are addressing the issue of competing with the
> smaller discount (economy) airlines EXCEPT American which is doing
> next to nothing in that regard. American is holding out in dealing
> with the labour unions, believing that United and US Airways will go
> titts up and be broken up in the bankruptcy courts. This of course,
> doesn't address the fundamental issue of labour costs exceeding 50%
> more than the economy airlines have to pay. In other words, while
> United and others have reached concessions for labour reductions,
> American by and large is only operating on the basis of $2 billion in
> available cash which is being depleted rapidly in operational
> expenses. Not a rosy picture.

Agreed.

>
> Believe it or not, United seems to be more forward looking than most
> of the rest. If they can survive bankruptcy, they are looking at
> purchasing a fleet of much smaller capacity and fuel efficient
> aircraft in a new "company" under the parent company to compete head
> to head with the economy carriers. If such restructuring is permitted
> to go forward, a huge percentage of United's schedule will be diverted
> to the newer, more efficient company. Both Continental and Delta are
> also slowly working into this restructuring process.

Yup, being "forced" into it by the invisible hand of competition. :)
Europe has been going through this for years.

>
> > Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
> > angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
> > than jumbos.
>
> I agree completely. Which is why American Airlines, which got hit
> pretty hard in 9/11, and is itself looking at probably filing Chapter
> 11 status in the next 12 months, ought to now start looking into
> spinning off a subsidiary "low cost" economy carrier of its own. This
> is the world's largest airline, and they still seem to be counting on
> the current status quo to somehow prevail. Again, the ONLY thing
> right now, keeping them out of filing Chapter 11, is the $2 billion is
> liquid cash (all liabilities) that they currently have on hand.

Yes. However, PRIOR to 9/11 several of the major airliner companies were
facing bankruptcy. Due to government bailouts after 9/11 (indeed because
of it) most of them escaped it. That doesn't change their long term
viability though.

>
> > One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.
>
> You got that right. Several of the airlines are trying to work out
> routing whereby not to waste their resources competing on non
> profitable routes. So far, the SEC and other Federal agencies are
> crying foul! If left alone, in most cases anyway, the airlines could
> most likely work out such compromises amongst themselves, outside of
> any government intervention at all.

Yes, the hub and spoke model's time is over.

...

> In automobile fuel restructuring, you wrote:
> > Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
> > stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
> > rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
> > remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
> > make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
> > availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
> > already here in Boise. :)
>
> I believe it is possible, that is, for the standard to be made on the
> basis for a free market choice by consumers. I only had the problem
> with YOU mandating that the government enter this picture by defining
> standards for "government" vehicles. But I also have a problem with

I see it as a responsibility the government has. It is a chain on
government: use the good stuff. As long as the government uses vehicles,
there will be a mandate on what is used.

> the petroleum industry monopolizing such standards, as such. They are
> just as big a liability to free markets (particularly when they are
> working in tandem with government regulation) as the government is
> itself.
>
> Let me just regress for a moment here. If BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
> and other corporate energy producers can monopolize the solar power
> market, as they are now trying to do, then they still make a free
> market solution to electrical energy largely dependent upon their own
> goals -- which will always be "petroleum"! They will artificially
> keep such alternative energy prices VERY HIGH to protect their main
> strategy of selling petroleum or fossil fuel products!

Yes. However, as I've mentioned before, ethanol is a disruptive
technology, and as such a genie they can not contain. Ethanol production
is doubling mostly because *literally* a group of farmers form a
co-operative to produce ethanol. Ethanol is a decentralist technology.

>
> > The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
> > been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
> > trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
> > monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
> > when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
> > than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
> > terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)
>
> You'll have to explain this more to me. I've been gone far too long as
> it is, and I don't honestly know what is being shown on the show room
> floors these days from Ford or GM. I own Ford, but not GM. I've
> always been a Ford man.

I'll try to keep it simple. :)
E85 = 15% gasoline 85% ethanol.

The air-fuel mixture requirement is different for E85 (most pumps here
in Boise output E10 year round), so a different chip is required, It
isn't a revolutionary technology so it doesn't make great news. A FFV
vehicle based on gas/ethanol uses a chip that handles both, and does so
w/o user intervention. You can run either E0, E10, or E85, or any
mixture thereof.

Last I saw here in Boise at least, E85 was a few cents cheaper than
E10/E0 (there is no price difference between E0--straight gas-- and
E10).

As far as the SUV being "better" when it runs on E85 compared to a more
"fuel efficient" care getting twice as much MPG...

Let us say we have an E85 powered SUV that gets 15 MPG, and compare it
to a sedan getting 30MPG running E10.

Let us figure 450 miles.
SUV: 30 gallons fuel
CAR: 15 gallons fuel

How much of that is petro-based?
SUV: 4.5 gallons
CAR: 13.5
CAR on straight gas: 15.

Then, there is the pollution factor.

The look on the face will be priceless. I've seen the look on one or two
people's faces just showing them the math. Heck, I could do a
"MasterCard commercial" over it! :)

> > My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
> > basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
> > be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
> > the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
> > to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
> > midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
> > success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".
>
> I see your point, as such. But I don't understand the technology at
> all. Point conceded. What will be the trade off, if any, in the cost
> per vehicle?

The last I looked, the cost was under 1 grand, and was told it would be
eliminated probably this year. The cost will be the time to order as
opposed to money spent. For companies (i.e. government) that order fleet
cars, there will be no difference in cost of vehicle.

>
> > Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
> > produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
> > progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
> > large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
> > landfill uh .. filling.
>
> Sounds exciting. To get the corporate producers of vehicles to sign
> on, will take some doing however, no doubt. To reconfigure a

They already have, Frank, that's what I'm trying to get across here.

> production line along such rapid changes, would require some basis for
> a profit, or payoff in the end. I've followed Ford's exploratory
> vehicles to a point, but they have also lost ground in such places

Where you've run into trouble is that these are not "exploratory", it's
a done deal tech-wise.

> I only use Ford as an example here, because as I said, I've always
> been a "Ford man". I haven't seen any innovative strategies from GM
> and haven't seen any of them for four decades, since the time I was
> old enough to take notice. Ford has always been the automotive
> innovator in both design and technology.
>
> I can't believe I am using Liberty Northwest as a free advertisement
> for the Ford Motor Company! Sorry, everyone!

That's OK, equal time is equal time. :)

>
> However, look back a few decades. Who produced the first American
> Sports Car? The Ford Thunderbird (1955), or the GM reaction (1956),
> the Corvette?

If you truly think the Corvette was a reaction, you should give credit
for doing in under a year what Ford took a few of years to do. ;) Same
for the rest. The T-bird wasn't exactly a sports car. Isn't today
either.

> What has GM ever innovated in the last four decades? They were on the
> brink of bankruptcy during the 1980s, losing billions of dollars. Ford
> wasn't doing so bad, with introductions of the Sable, Grenada, and
> entering the SUV market well ahead of GM or Chrysler's wildest
> imaginations!

Actually, Ford was on the verge of bankruptcy itself, it was the Taurus
that rescued them. I don't know if they still do, but they used to
freely acknowledge that --indeed they bragged how the Taurus saved them.

>
> So, why am I a Ford man, you ask? I have no clue. I just believe they
> will get out of this current stinking mess before any other US
> automaker can come up with the technological and design answers.

Gm was the first, as I recall, to offer FFVs to the market through the
CNG/Propane factory options (you could run on either gas or CNG or
gas/propane the cost was 1500 and you ordered it). GM _currently_ has
more models that can run E85 than any other company.

:^)

>
> [Frank reverts to a more objective position...]
>
> > Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
> > reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)
> > Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
> > called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
> > and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
> > options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
> > and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
> > working to get caught up).
>
> Why am I not surprised.

Because they took a different tack to revive themselves.

>
> > We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
> > McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
> > cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
> > resource too. :)
>
> Yea, you right. I do have to come back and see some of this. I might
> not be all that happy either in what I see, discounting the smell from
> burgers from tailpipe emissions. Got to believe that Ford is likely on

Actually, they smell like french fries. :)

>
> > I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
> > fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
> > cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
> > as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
> > sold at half off, you can by twice as much.
>
> Perhaps. But not always the case. When economic concerns are in place,
> people want to drive between A-Z. What is the most economical way to
> arrive at such a destination? Many Americans are less concerned with
> such choices, and frankly, don't care. I've noticed that the latest
> models don't care either. Since GM's Geo Metro (about 54 mpg), such
> options have largely disappeared in recent years. The Metro is gone,
> so as the Chevrolet Sprint, which also enjoyed mpg figures in the 50
> mpg range.
>
> Admittedly, both Ford and Chrysler did not pursue the mpg issue as
> aggressively as GM once did. It does appear however that even GM has
> thrown in the towel on that as well. When you que in on mpg on a
> search engine to find the best mpg available in standard internal
> combustion engines, the best you can come up with days is the low
> 40's.

Yup. MPG is not a seller. That;s why the ecofreaks have taken the
mandate it route.

> I haven't been able to find one single automobile, marketed in the US,
> using standard internal combustion technology that gets very far ahead
> of 40 mpg. I do know, that in Japan, several models are still
> available manufactured by Suzukki, owned in large part by GM. However,
> the absence of such vehicles in America seems to suggest that there is
> no market for fuel economy per se. The Geo Metro is gone. The Chevy
> Sprint is gone, and with that, fuel economy as an issue has largely
> disappeared.

The other side of that is that to get that MPG, you needed a shoebox on
wheels. not too practical. Oh, and then there is the safety issue.
Trying to merge in front of a semi in an econobox. That tends to place
some things in perspective. Econoboxes just weren't practical for he
average family either. SUVs *are*.

>
> This says a lot, to me at least, as far as American's concerned over
> energy consumption is a basic issue at all.
>
> > I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
> > base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
> > highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.
>
> I do. Russia's reserves haven't even been quantified yet. We simply
> have little scientific information that would suggest that Russia
> isn't sitting on the highest petroleum reserves on the entire plant.

We have even less saying they are.

> Russia will be a key player in energy, and WILL surpass Saudi Arabia's
> capacity by the year 2005, or perhaps much sooner than even that.

Unless they have a greater reserve than Saudi Arabia, they will die out
fast.

>
> This is also true of the north slope of Alaska! Which was largely
> locked up by the former Bush Administration. This is also pure bull
> shit, and I can't believe any American would support this dependence
> upon imported oil! This includes, the same Bush Administration locking
> up exploration and production of petroleum on the west coast
> continental shelf! I have read and heard of the impact that the
> colossal resources on the North Slope in Alaska even exceeds that of
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> So, your figures don't match, Bill. If Russia has substantial
> petroleum reserves that exceed Saudi Arabia, and the Alaskan North
> Slope exceeds the capacity of Saudi Arabia, then why? I ask, is
> mid-east oil such a "burning concern" (no pun intended)?

Because nobody has proven Russia *has* the reserves you allege. Until
they prove they have more reserves, they will not be the big kid on the
block, regardless of temporal output. As of the latest numbers, they
have less than half the reserves of S.A.

Further, as Russia's economny does pick up, they will increase *their*
consumption. As of last fall, they consumed a little under a third of
their production.

>
> Anyway, even if the echo-frecks get their way, and global warming is
> really talking place, then Russia will be the chief beneficiary of
> that trend, since Siberia will also warm up, and create thereby a new
> tremendous resource for the planet in terms of such things as
> agriculture, and growth in forest products as such! I don't see any
> dooms day scenario hanging over the planet in such cases.

I'll see if I can find the link but the ecofreaks have a custom
disaster for global warming for everyone. If warming would do you good,
they say it will get colder in your area. I'm not making this up.

Ahh here it is:
http://www.john-daly.com/banner.htm

For Russia, which as you note would *welcome* some warming, somehow we
are going to see the melting of the polar ice caps yet the North
Atlantic will get COLDER.

Basically, pick the worst thing that could happen weather-wise to an
area, and the econuts say global warming will make it worse!
(of course, I'm not agreeing with them, just pointing it out)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fuel Cells.
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:56:04 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Fuel Cells Dammit!!

I have been working on HVAC concepts and off-grid existence for a while.
Philosophically I find it necessary to be able to live in the middle of
nowhere and still have most of the amenities of modern living.
(Some ideas I have had: Mining water from the air, using satelite internet
as one's main telephone connection, living in/on the sea and using tidal
power (no real estate costs, and possibly no laws to adhere to, the only
problem maybe hurricanes), underground living for the constant temperature,
and a number of others)
But really, to compete with the relatively low costs of obtaining power from
the grid, the only way to go is co-generation. In so many off-grid
electricity production setups I see people literally throw away more than
half the usable energy. Specifically the heat!
In more conventional generating setups, people run their electrical
generator and use the electricity only, and the generator makes all kinds of
heat that is just tossed to the wind.
Even in these setups, if people used that heat to warm their homes, the
off-grid home powering systems would approach the cost of normal on-grid and
heat distribution services.

However I read a lot of hoopla about fuel cells, and fundamentally it is THE
way to go as far as energy production is concerned - remove the intermediate
carnot cycle limitations and approach theoretical conversion efficiencies.
The big problem is that the latest systems being touted run only on very
pure hydrogen. This is impractical, as hydrogen is hard to store,
energetically and physically inconvenient to produce.
The answer to this problem, that is overlooked for public relations reasons,
is that in the right type of fuel cells carbon monoxide is superior to
hydrogen as a fuel cell gas. Carbon monoxide is incredibly easy to make
(most of it is made inadvertently), and can be converted efficiently from
natural gas using a nickel catalyst.
This, combined with a cogeneration system utilising the heat and water
concurrently generated, would easily compete economically with any utility
grid and fuel distribution system. One could totally power one's home for
less than grid prices, and remain independent.

This is the ultimate as far as I am concerned. I am working on a molten salt
electrical furnace that would do all these things, and could be powered
either from natural gas or from coke/carbon/coal.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Foreign Policy...

> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > > It is not uncommon anymore to see modules producing 6-8 amps of power
at
> > > 12VDC, where before the average array only produced about half that
much.
> > > Also, because they have become smaller, they require far less space to
mount
> > > on smaller homes and lot sizes, even condomeniums where size is often
> > > restrictive.
>
> You replied:
> > The way to get the most out of solar is to convert as much as possible
> > to DC as opposed to AC. Too much is lost in the conversion form DC
> > (produced by solar) to AC (standard housing power). I've looked a lot at
> > the "off-grid" houses, and they've made substantial progress, though
> > still too expensive for Joe Sixpack (even Joe AverageDoctor/Lawyer).
>
> I don't think that they are. I'm not the "AverageDoctor/Lawyer", and
> it works for me. It is NOT practical in most cases to assume a
> majority of dependence upon 12VDC, although it that could happen, it
> would be nice. In reality, small things demand the use of conversion
> to 120VAC. These small things keep the inverter turned on to supply
> those necessities. The inverter itself takes power to convert such
> energy from DC to AC, so in all likelihood, the inverter will be
> working anyway, even when using DC energy.
>
> So, find an inverter that is less a costly drain upon DC, such as
> Trace inverters which in idle mode have a negligible drain, and even
> when supplying direct AC, the loss of power is also minimal. Some
> inverters are ridiculously expensive in terms of loss of power, but
> Trace and others have made substantial advances in eliminating much of
> that amperage drain. You can also manually adjust Trace Inverters to
> the minimum pull to spring them from idle mode to full power mode.
> Inverters no medium for this. They either supply AC or they choose not
> to, depending upon the setting you initiate. So, if a freezer or
> refrigerator kick in, the inverter shifts to deliver AC. If a 5-watt
> light bulb is turned on, it might not be of sufficient amperage to
> kick on the inverter. The key is to configure your home to 12VDC
> lighting, and only keep necessary appliances running the triggering
> process for the AC inverter to switch on.
>
> RE: Airline restructuring, you wrote:
> > IMO, the restructuring of the US airline system is inevitable, and
> > carries more than just oil reduction costs. Something that has been lost
> > is that economies of scale are different in modern airline movement. As
> > you mentioned, the smaller airlines are doing better than the large
> > ones. This is due to several factors, chief among them are smaller
> > planes as opposed to jumbos and standardization of models (by that I
> > mean that an airline uses one or two models *only*, which has major
> > maintenance cost savings).
>
> I own stock in Delta, Continental, Northwest, United and American. All
> of these airlines are addressing the issue of competing with the
> smaller discount (economy) airlines EXCEPT American which is doing
> next to nothing in that regard. American is holding out in dealing
> with the labour unions, believing that United and US Airways will go
> titts up and be broken up in the bankruptcy courts. This of course,
> doesn't address the fundamental issue of labour costs exceeding 50%
> more than the economy airlines have to pay. In other words, while
> United and others have reached concessions for labour reductions,
> American by and large is only operating on the basis of $2 billion in
> available cash which is being depleted rapidly in operational
> expenses. Not a rosy picture.
>
> Believe it or not, United seems to be more forward looking than most
> of the rest. If they can survive bankruptcy, they are looking at
> purchasing a fleet of much smaller capacity and fuel efficient
> aircraft in a new "company" under the parent company to compete head
> to head with the economy carriers. If such restructuring is permitted
> to go forward, a huge percentage of United's schedule will be diverted
> to the newer, more efficient company. Both Continental and Delta are
> also slowly working into this restructuring process.
>
> > Another benefit, and it should not be overlooked, is the "terrorist"
> > angle. Smaller planes flying to more destinations, are less of a threat
> > than jumbos.
>
> I agree completely. Which is why American Airlines, which got hit
> pretty hard in 9/11, and is itself looking at probably filing Chapter
> 11 status in the next 12 months, ought to now start looking into
> spinning off a subsidiary "low cost" economy carrier of its own. This
> is the world's largest airline, and they still seem to be counting on
> the current status quo to somehow prevail. Again, the ONLY thing
> right now, keeping them out of filing Chapter 11, is the $2 billion is
> liquid cash (all liabilities) that they currently have on hand.
>
> > One thing holding it all back is government regulations. Of course.
>
> You got that right. Several of the airlines are trying to work out
> routing whereby not to waste their resources competing on non
> profitable routes. So far, the SEC and other Federal agencies are
> crying foul! If left alone, in most cases anyway, the airlines could
> most likely work out such compromises amongst themselves, outside of
> any government intervention at all.
>
> I previously wrote:
> > It is practical right now for the average size home to
> > > have its electrical requirements produced mostly by solar power now
(in most
> > > areas of the US) for around $10,000. That requires a lot of
modifications to
> > > such things as lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and cooking
devices.
>
> And, you replied:
> > Yes, it does. Nearly a wholesale change of the wiring and devices.
> > Doable, though.
>
> Well, in my home in Idaho, I have several two electrical boxes
> available in every room. One with brown panels that accept 12VDC, and
> white panels that are fitted to 120VAC. It's easy to do that with a
> new home, when such plans are already fitted into the blueprints. It
> is far more difficult to retrofit a used house that is designed around
> the use of 120VAC. That gets both messy, and expensive. The white
> panelled boxes are directly from the AC inverter, and the brown ones
> directly from the DC battery source.
>
> In automobile fuel restructuring, you wrote:
> > Actually, the entire infrastructure for E85 is there. We call them "gas
> > stations". :) The changes to make E85 available at a gas station are
> > rather minor (most involve cleaning the existing tanks, since E85 will
> > remove the sludge if left). It takes on average 200 steady customers to
> > make a grade of fuel profitable for a facilities change. The E85
> > availability in stations is doubling each year. There is one or two
> > already here in Boise. :)
>
> I believe it is possible, that is, for the standard to be made on the
> basis for a free market choice by consumers. I only had the problem
> with YOU mandating that the government enter this picture by defining
> standards for "government" vehicles. But I also have a problem with
> the petroleum industry monopolizing such standards, as such. They are
> just as big a liability to free markets (particularly when they are
> working in tandem with government regulation) as the government is
> itself.
>
> Let me just regress for a moment here. If BP, Chevron-Texaco, Shell,
> and other corporate energy producers can monopolize the solar power
> market, as they are now trying to do, then they still make a free
> market solution to electrical energy largely dependent upon their own
> goals -- which will always be "petroleum"! They will artificially
> keep such alternative energy prices VERY HIGH to protect their main
> strategy of selling petroleum or fossil fuel products!
>
> If you doubt what I am saying, check out the ownership over WHO has
> bought up the production of solar voltic companies just in the last
> five years! There are still some independent companies that are out
> there, but they are striking in terms of corporate mergers and
> buyouts, mainly because the technology is threatening their
> (petroleum) interests. It's interesting to watch this shit happen.
>
> Actually, solar electric technology isn't that new. On the bright
> side, emerging markets in China, Japan, and Taiwan may really throw a
> wrench into this mix, and actually make solar electric power very
> price competitive with existing electrical generation.
>
> > The drive behind the increase in available E85 from the big three has
> > been driven by consumer demand so far. Funny thing is: most of them are
> > trucks and SUVs. :) I'm eagerly awaiting the day I get my shiny new
> > monstrous sized SUV (Chevy Avalanche), and see the face of an ecofreak
> > when I explain how my big nasty vehicle is better on the environment
> > than his roller skate on wheels (or how my bug nasty SUV "supports
> > terrorism" less than some leftists' vehicle). :)
>
> You'll have to explain this more to me. I've been gone far too long as
> it is, and I don't honestly know what is being shown on the show room
> floors these days from Ford or GM. I own Ford, but not GM. I've
> always been a Ford man.
>
> > My vision is not done at the federal level, but done on a per-state
> > basis. For example, Idaho could lead the way by mandating it's vehicles
> > be E85, leading to a very positive change in the environment as well as
> > the economy. We could "scoop" California. :) Then, as it became obvious
> > to the rest of the country, it would sweep quickly. I'd expect the
> > midwest states to follow suit in short order. Being able to take proven
> > success to the states, and ultimately the fed, is a powerful "weapon".
>
> I see your point, as such. But I don't understand the technology at
> all. Point conceded. What will be the trade off, if any, in the cost
> per vehicle?
>
> > Initially, I expect states where they can grow crops for it (the crops
> > produce much more than ethanol, BTW) to be the early adopters. As it
> > progresses, garbage conversion will be more economical, and then the
> > large cities and states will swoop in like hawks on it ... it reduces
> > landfill uh .. filling.
>
> Sounds exciting. To get the corporate producers of vehicles to sign
> on, will take some doing however, no doubt. To reconfigure a
> production line along such rapid changes, would require some basis for
> a profit, or payoff in the end. I've followed Ford's exploratory
> vehicles to a point, but they have also lost ground in such places as
> Norway, which refused to give Ford tax-exempt status for the
> production of such vehicles. Of course, Norway is a oil producing
> nation. This has GOT to be a fundamental question, e.g.: Are the
> interests of corporate petroleum producers of such a nature that
> prohibit the economical benefits to consumers from choosing
> alternative and more cost effective trade-offs to current technology?
> Can and do such interests affect the nature of what governments
> ultimately decide to do?
>
> I only use Ford as an example here, because as I said, I've always
> been a "Ford man". I haven't seen any innovative strategies from GM
> and haven't seen any of them for four decades, since the time I was
> old enough to take notice. Ford has always been the automotive
> innovator in both design and technology.
>
> I can't believe I am using Liberty Northwest as a free advertisement
> for the Ford Motor Company! Sorry, everyone!
>
> However, look back a few decades. Who produced the first American
> Sports Car? The Ford Thunderbird (1955), or the GM reaction (1956),
> the Corvette?
>
> I love this! This really gets my mind off politics for a while!
>
> Who, produced the FIRST midsized automobile? The Ford Fairlane
> (1962), or the GM's reactionary version with the Chevelle (1963).
>
> And, what about economy models? Ford's Falcon (1960) and GM's
> reactionary response with the "Corvere" (sp) or whatever it's spelling
> is.
>
> What about Ford's introduction of the Mustang (1965). The first
> innovative sports car "family version" vehicle opening a broad new
> market. GM's version, again a year later, the Camero, (1966).
>
> What has GM ever innovated in the last four decades? They were on the
> brink of bankruptcy during the 1980s, losing billions of dollars. Ford
> wasn't doing so bad, with introductions of the Sable, Grenada, and
> entering the SUV market well ahead of GM or Chrysler's wildest
> imaginations!
>
> So, why am I a Ford man, you ask? I have no clue. I just believe they
> will get out of this current stinking mess before any other US
> automaker can come up with the technological and design answers.
>
> [Frank reverts to a more objective position...]
>
> > Actually, Frank, it appears you may be a bit behind --which I'm
> > reasonable sure you'll be glad to hear. ;)
> > Ford and Chevy both have vehicles with E85 capability (Generically
> > called "Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) for most of their trucks/SUV
> > and passenger van lines and starting to get into the passenger car
> > options. The availability of the vehicles is not a problem. Just go down
> > and order one up from GM or FoMoCo. (Chrysler i sa bit behind but
> > working to get caught up).
>
> Why am I not surprised.
>
> > We have a few biodiesel busses and trucks around here. They smell like a
> > McDonalds restaurant.. ;) Largely because that's a good source (used
> > cooking oil). You know, in this country, that's a definite renewable
> > resource too. :)
>
> Yea, you right. I do have to come back and see some of this. I might
> not be all that happy either in what I see, discounting the smell from
> burgers from tailpipe emissions. Got to believe that Ford is likely on
> top of this new technology however. I've got my money riding on it
> nevertheless.
>
> > I don't really think SUV's had anything to do with it. What most people
> > fail to realize is that in mandating "fuel efficiency", they've made it
> > cheaper to drive more. It is like "50% less fat" foods. People eat twice
> > as much, since it is allegedly half as bad for them; or like an item
> > sold at half off, you can by twice as much.
>
> Perhaps. But not always the case. When economic concerns are in place,
> people want to drive between A-Z. What is the most economical way to
> arrive at such a destination? Many Americans are less concerned with
> such choices, and frankly, don't care. I've noticed that the latest
> models don't care either. Since GM's Geo Metro (about 54 mpg), such
> options have largely disappeared in recent years. The Metro is gone,
> so as the Chevrolet Sprint, which also enjoyed mpg figures in the 50
> mpg range.
>
> Admittedly, both Ford and Chrysler did not pursue the mpg issue as
> aggressively as GM once did. It does appear however that even GM has
> thrown in the towel on that as well. When you que in on mpg on a
> search engine to find the best mpg available in standard internal
> combustion engines, the best you can come up with days is the low
> 40's.
>
> I haven't been able to find one single automobile, marketed in the US,
> using standard internal combustion technology that gets very far ahead
> of 40 mpg. I do know, that in Japan, several models are still
> available manufactured by Suzukki, owned in large part by GM. However,
> the absence of such vehicles in America seems to suggest that there is
> no market for fuel economy per se. The Geo Metro is gone. The Chevy
> Sprint is gone, and with that, fuel economy as an issue has largely
> disappeared.
>
> This says a lot, to me at least, as far as American's concerned over
> energy consumption is a basic issue at all.
>
> > I don't see Russia as being as big a player, but that's my opinion. I
> > base it largely on the fact that their reserves are not as high. The
> > highest single known reserve concentration is in fact, Saudi Arabia.
>
> I do. Russia's reserves haven't even been quantified yet. We simply
> have little scientific information that would suggest that Russia
> isn't sitting on the highest petroleum reserves on the entire plant.
> Russia will be a key player in energy, and WILL surpass Saudi Arabia's
> capacity by the year 2005, or perhaps much sooner than even that.
>
> This is also true of the north slope of Alaska! Which was largely
> locked up by the former Bush Administration. This is also pure bull
> shit, and I can't believe any American would support this dependence
> upon imported oil! This includes, the same Bush Administration locking
> up exploration and production of petroleum on the west coast
> continental shelf! I have read and heard of the impact that the
> colossal resources on the North Slope in Alaska even exceeds that of
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> So, your figures don't match, Bill. If Russia has substantial
> petroleum reserves that exceed Saudi Arabia, and the Alaskan North
> Slope exceeds the capacity of Saudi Arabia, then why? I ask, is
> mid-east oil such a "burning concern" (no pun intended)?
>
> Anyway, even if the echo-frecks get their way, and global warming is
> really talking place, then Russia will be the chief beneficiary of
> that trend, since Siberia will also warm up, and create thereby a new
> tremendous resource for the planet in terms of such things as
> agriculture, and growth in forest products as such! I don't see any
> dooms day scenario hanging over the planet in such cases.
>
> > I don't see solar as a net win for many many years to come, likely
> > decades. Now, fuel cells, however, that is the next technology I see for
> > electric grid deployment. It can be done per-unit, be it house or
> > commercial building, or even apartments.
>
> Solar power is already here, and as I've already stated, is
> achievable. The cost of homes is currently around $80k. So, a $10,000
> investment in alternative solar power is already an option for each
> and every homebuilder, and home buyer.
>
> Problem is, that few, precious choices are made in the market place
> today. Mostly because of government building codes, and regulations.
>
> I'm sending this now. Getting late here. Please do get back with me on
> this.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: 06 Feb 2003 12:01:00 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 05:56, G Triest wrote:
> Fuel Cells Dammit!!
>
> I have been working on HVAC concepts and off-grid existence for a while.
> Philosophically I find it necessary to be able to live in the middle of
> nowhere and still have most of the amenities of modern living.
> (Some ideas I have had: Mining water from the air, using satelite internet
> as one's main telephone connection, living in/on the sea and using tidal
> power (no real estate costs, and possibly no laws to adhere to, the only
> problem maybe hurricanes), underground living for the constant
temperature,
> and a number of others)
> But really, to compete with the relatively low costs of obtaining power
from
> the grid, the only way to go is co-generation. In so many off-grid
> electricity production setups I see people literally throw away more than
> half the usable energy. Specifically the heat!
> In more conventional generating setups, people run their electrical
> generator and use the electricity only, and the generator makes all kinds
of
> heat that is just tossed to the wind.
> Even in these setups, if people used that heat to warm their homes, the
> off-grid home powering systems would approach the cost of normal on-grid
and
> heat distribution services.
>
> However I read a lot of hoopla about fuel cells, and fundamentally it is
THE
> way to go as far as energy production is concerned - remove the
intermediate
> carnot cycle limitations and approach theoretical conversion efficiencies.
> The big problem is that the latest systems being touted run only on very
> pure hydrogen. This is impractical, as hydrogen is hard to store,
> energetically and physically inconvenient to produce.

Yes, that's why hydrogen fuel cells are yesterday's news. ;) I haven't
seen anyone touting that for some time now. The automakers are primarily
working on gasoline or gasoline hybrid fuel cells, the Canadians and a
few American companies are working on natural gas home units, and the
renewable fuels people are working on ethanol based fuel cells.

> The answer to this problem, that is overlooked for public relations
reasons,
> is that in the right type of fuel cells carbon monoxide is superior to
> hydrogen as a fuel cell gas. Carbon monoxide is incredibly easy to make
> (most of it is made inadvertently), and can be converted efficiently from
> natural gas using a nickel catalyst.
> This, combined with a cogeneration system utilising the heat and water
> concurrently generated, would easily compete economically with any utility
> grid and fuel distribution system. One could totally power one's home for
> less than grid prices, and remain independent.
>
> This is the ultimate as far as I am concerned. I am working on a molten
salt
> electrical furnace that would do all these things, and could be powered
> either from natural gas or from coke/carbon/coal.

Gary, you would probably be interested in one of my other posts on this
then where I talked about fuel cells, and that Ethanol is in fact one of
the best sources for fuel for these things. They are quite simple,
purely chemical (no combustion, etc.), they output only water, and are
very efficient. Not to mention much smaller than the current plans of
gasses or gasolines. In fact, a vehicle can be fitted with such a setup
quite easily, with the fuels in the normal gas tank, and the cell "under
the hood". The most noted change would be the addition of a tank to
capture the resulting water output.

Ethanol can be pipelined (it does so well), and could provide a means of
fuel to a house in the city (a source for power generation as well as
possible use for furnaces for heat), or stored in tanks for housing away
form pipelines.

Further, one must always look at distribution methods. The mechanism
that utilizes the existing systems will be the most likely to succeed.

There are already fuel cell units for the home that are powered by
natural gas. However, NG is non-renewable. Coke/Carbon/Coal are not
renewable --with the exception of carbon though more energy goes into
making it than you get out of it.

Natural Gas powered fuel cells will likely be the first to catch on, but
only in the areas that have already invested in natural gas
infrastructure. I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will
be Ethanol, as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution
infrastructure, *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines
provides a migration path. Basically:

gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells

Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)

<snip leftovers>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:40:29 PST
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Bill Anderson <libnw@immosys.com>

On 06-Feb-03, Bill Anderson wrote:

BA> ... I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will be
Ethanol,
BA> as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution infrastructure,
BA> *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines provides a
migration
BA> path. Basically:

BA> gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells

BA> Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)

Just a few questions:

How much ethanol would the US consume per day/month/year;

How much ethanol can American farmlands produce per day/month/year without
diverting crops from more profitable markets;

and, maybe most importantly,

How will this affect the price of bourbon?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: 06 Feb 2003 17:42:16 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 16:40, Ed Fischang wrote:
> On 06-Feb-03, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> BA> ... I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will be
Ethanol,
> BA> as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution
infrastructure,
> BA> *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines provides a
migration
> BA> path. Basically:
>
> BA> gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells
>
> BA> Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)
>
> Just a few questions:
>
> How much ethanol would the US consume per day/month/year;

That depends on the penetration.

>
> How much ethanol can American farmlands produce per day/month/year without
> diverting crops from more profitable markets;

I assume you mean by "more profitable" food? 100%.

It is a false notion that ethanol stock is the same as food stock. The
two stock crop areas are not the same. Any overlap is animal feed stock,
but that is actually a byproduct of the ethanol production process
anyway. Further, other process mechanisms don't use crop at all, but
organic garbage, etc..

As far as "more profitable" in other ways ethanol *is* the most
profitable use of such crops. It adds, on average, 30 cents per bushel
to the price of corn. As you can imagine, farmers have been a *big*
influence on moving to ethanol. The economic factors have led to many
ethanol plants being run by co-ops formed by geographically near
farmers. I'm in the early stages of talking to local farmers about this
possibility here in Idaho.

[of course, since I also run for state legislature, I acknowledge a
political advantage to gaining the support of the farmers, the true
environmentalists (not: NOT the ecofreaks!), the construction groups
(someone has to build these plants), and through economy boosting many
other classes voters. However, that's a decidedly good benefit, not my
motivator.]

> and, maybe most importantly,
>
> How will this affect the price of bourbon?

Directly, not much. ;) Though over the long run, it *could* reduce your
taxes, freeing up more money for bourbon. ;) or if you happen to be a
farmer or producer of materials used in the ethanol process you might
have more money available to buy bourbon. ;)

It isn't *quite* a panacea. ;^)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:00:19 -0500
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I am skeptical about alcohol and gasoline based fuel cell systems. The
amount of energy lost in the conversion is very significant, kinda undoing
the reason for using a fuel cell in the first place. Yes of course it is
better to have a solid-state electrical power producer, but it bothers me to
think of 30 -50 % of the available energy being lost in the conversion.

I somewhat disagree about the disavailability of natural gas though. This is
a fuel with such an abundence on earth it is scary. Most of what we have now
comes from oil drilling, but think of all the methane hydrate deposits that
have been found at the bottom of the sea. There is more energy there than
just about anywhere else on earth. We will not run out for a long time.
Another source could be bacteria working on biological wastes and cellulose
(so there is your renewability!).
And how can you say that carbon is a nonrenewable resource? All wood turns
into carbon.

I like the idea of a carbon based fuel cell; put your wood in and get heat
and electricity out ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fuel Cells.

>
> Gary, you would probably be interested in one of my other posts on this
> then where I talked about fuel cells, and that Ethanol is in fact one of
> the best sources for fuel for these things. They are quite simple,
> purely chemical (no combustion, etc.), they output only water, and are
> very efficient. Not to mention much smaller than the current plans of
> gasses or gasolines. In fact, a vehicle can be fitted with such a setup
> quite easily, with the fuels in the normal gas tank, and the cell "under
> the hood". The most noted change would be the addition of a tank to
> capture the resulting water output.
>
> Ethanol can be pipelined (it does so well), and could provide a means of
> fuel to a house in the city (a source for power generation as well as
> possible use for furnaces for heat), or stored in tanks for housing away
> form pipelines.
>
> Further, one must always look at distribution methods. The mechanism
> that utilizes the existing systems will be the most likely to succeed.
>
> There are already fuel cell units for the home that are powered by
> natural gas. However, NG is non-renewable. Coke/Carbon/Coal are not
> renewable --with the exception of carbon though more energy goes into
> making it than you get out of it.
>
> Natural Gas powered fuel cells will likely be the first to catch on, but
> only in the areas that have already invested in natural gas
> infrastructure. I expect that the most popular vehicular fuel cells will
> be Ethanol, as it takes advantage of the current fuel distribution
> infrastructure, *and* use of ethanol in internal combustion engines
> provides a migration path. Basically:
>
> gasoline -> E10 -> E85 -> Ethanol powered Fuel cells
>
> Go fuel cells, go ethanol, and we will see oil *go*. :)
>
>
> <snip leftovers>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: BOYCOTT THE OREGONIAN-PLEASE FORWARD
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:58:36 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>,
"laworegon@yahoogroups.com" <laworegon@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
TSCW <12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com>,
pdml@yahoogroups.com
CC: Arianna Huffington <arianna@ariannaonline.com>,
kcosgrov@oregonlive.com, bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com,
davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com,
davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com,
susanneilson@news.oregonian.com, marykitch@news.oregonian.com,
dougbates@news.oregonian.com, rickattig@news.oregonian.com,
nanalexander@news.oregonian.com

BOYCOTT THE OREGONIAN-- PLEASE FORWARD

Paul wrote:
I just watched Fox News Watch. It was brought to my attention
that The Oregonian newspaper is dropping Arianna Huffington's
column because of her anti-SUV ads. The Oregonian doesn't
think it's right to have an activist position and write a column.

One person on Fox News Watch alluded to the idea that
The Oregonian is appeasing the auto dealers. Jim Pinkerton
thought is was a bad move by The Oregonian, but that they
have that right in a free market. I agree! We have the right
in a free market to now call for a boycott of The Portland
Oregonian, for being a rag of censored news not fit to print.

<snip>
• Arianna Leaves in a Huffington: Was the Portland Oregonian
justified in dropping Arianna Huffington's regular
column because
she "crossed the line" into activism with her
anti-SUV commercial?

<snip>

Drop their editors a line if you so desire:
Robert J Caldwell-Editorial Page Editor
bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [CPOP] educate THE OREGONIAN-PLEASE FORWARD
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 12:28:32 EST
From: Censorthis1@aol.com
To: cp3@yahoogroups.com, apfn-1@yahoogroups.com,
News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org, piml@yahoogroups.com,
laworegon@yahoogroups.com, libnw@immosys.com,
12-Step_Coercion_Watch@yahoogroups.com, pdml@yahoogroups.com
CC: arianna@ariannaonline.com, kcosgrov@oregonlive.com,
bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com, davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com,
davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com, susanneilson@news.oregonian.com,
marykitch@news.oregonian.com, dougbates@news.oregonian.com,
rickattig@news.oregonian.com, nanalexander@news.oregonian.com

while millions of us are whacking at the branches of evil; only one is
striking at the root. -henry david thoreau

the issue of suv's is a non issue. period. the issue of burning fossil
fuels is the issue. it is killing this planet and its inhabitants. which
you are one of whether you like it or not.

and if fossil fuels were the only thing out there that would work to satisfy
our human selfish appetites; then i would not be railing you, on your
ignorance of what a very significant problem is, in our society.

arianna, i have told you the answer atleast 5 times now; and atleast 20
times if you were actually paying attention. now, i cant believe someone of
your intellect can consciously miss all of these attempts at educating you
for your own good and the good of the people. so, i have no other choice
than to assume you have sold your soul to the no soul gang.

there is no other excuse to point at from my knowing your intentions and
energies toward your vision of "the 2000 shadow campaigns" and what i see as
a 3 year waste of your time toward educating yourself on the real issues.
you have not. you have actually went backwards.

with freedom, comes responsibility. and you have chosen to run from your
responsibilities toward the pursuit of freedom. therefore, you are not
worthy to achieve true freedom, and you are being treated accordingly by
people who are just as ignorant and afraid to achieve what you are not
trying to achieve.

and the only reason i am attempting one more time to enlighten you; and thus
bring confidence to you, to do the right thing; is to educate those who will
read this, toward finding it in yourself to get over the fear of collective
societal oppression, the right way; and to inform these people that we are
either going to find nirvana soon; or we are going to all become "real time
slaves" as in the bloody days of the pharoahs "slaves." and if you think i
am fuking with you; you have another thing coming.

you people are all in a position to understand where the roots are to this
very old tree of evil that is about to shade the whole planet very soon.

i suggest you all start attempting to strike at the root. we all have
minds. we can all be heroes. it is just if you; are going to get off your
ass and do something positive toward the betterment of this planet and its
inhabitants.

wake up people. you are helping them by not learning this. and that will
be judged as treason in the future. you have been warned. use this time
wisely.

i found it...hard
it was hard to find
oh well...whatever
nevermind...

hello!!!

peace :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [CPOP] educate THE OREGONIAN-PLEASE FORWARD
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 12:57:44 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com,Censorthis1@aol.com

Oh puleease! Take your Gaia worshipping environmentalist nonsense
somewhere else.

Global warming and fossil fuel usage is NOT "killing this planet and its
inhabitants". If you want to debate facts, you can reply to this email.

I suspect that the Oregonian dropped Arianna from its editorial page
because they were getting tired of her and her writing quality was going
down. Then, Arianna gave them an excuse. They might not have done it if
she had started a campaign against AIDS or hunger in Africa, asking people
to donate money to some charity. But almost any kind of a political
campaign would have given them the excuse they were looking for.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 12:28 02/09/03 -0500, you wrote:
>while millions of us are whacking at the branches of evil; only one is
>striking at the root. -henry david thoreau
>
>the issue of suv's is a non issue. period. the issue of burning fossil
>fuels is the issue. it is killing this planet and its inhabitants. which
>you are one of whether you like it or not.
>
>and if fossil fuels were the only thing out there that would work to
>satisfy our human selfish appetites; then i would not be railing you, on
>your ignorance of what a very significant problem is, in our society.
>
>arianna, i have told you the answer atleast 5 times now; and atleast 20
>times if you were actually paying attention. now, i cant believe someone
>of your intellect can consciously miss all of these attempts at educating
>you for your own good and the good of the people. so, i have no other
>choice than to assume you have sold your soul to the no soul gang.
>
>there is no other excuse to point at from my knowing your intentions and
>energies toward your vision of "the 2000 shadow campaigns" and what i see
>as a 3 year waste of your time toward educating yourself on the real
>issues. you have not. you have actually went backwards.
>
>with freedom, comes responsibility. and you have chosen to run from your
>responsibilities toward the pursuit of freedom. therefore, you are not
>worthy to achieve true freedom, and you are being treated accordingly by
>people who are just as ignorant and afraid to achieve what you are not
>trying to achieve.
>
>and the only reason i am attempting one more time to enlighten you; and
>thus bring confidence to you, to do the right thing; is to educate those
>who will read this, toward finding it in yourself to get over the fear of
>collective societal oppression, the right way; and to inform these people
>that we are either going to find nirvana soon; or we are going to all
>become "real time slaves" as in the bloody days of the pharoahs
>"slaves." and if you think i am fuking with you; you have another thing
>coming.
>
>you people are all in a position to understand where the roots are to this
>very old tree of evil that is about to shade the whole planet very soon.
>
>i suggest you all start attempting to strike at the root. we all have
>minds. we can all be heroes. it is just if you; are going to get off
>your ass and do something positive toward the betterment of this planet
>and its inhabitants.
>
>wake up people. you are helping them by not learning this. and that will
>be judged as treason in the future. you have been warned. use this time
>wisely.
>
>i found it...hard
>it was hard to find
> oh well...whatever
>nevermind...
>
>hello!!!
>
>peace :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Rush Limbaugh Calls War Protesters "Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist
Marxists and Communists" - Boycott Limbaugh Advertisers
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:24:04 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>,
Unclesamsucks <unclesamsucks@yahoogroups.com>
CC: Arianna Huffington <arianna@ariannaonline.com>

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/rushbusted.html
--
"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty
land will never be purged away, but with blood..."

" John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in
the grave, His soul goes marching on."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Image] [Image] [Image][Image][Image] [Image][Image][Image][Image][Image][Image]

[Media Flash] [Image]
AIRWAVES [Image] Help Take Back The Media: Support this
Site
Enid Goldstein [Image] [Image]
Erin Hart [Be A Watcher!!]
Meria Heller Rush Limbaugh calls War Protesters
Joey Joe Joe Show! "Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist Marxists and
KBOO Communists"!!
KPFA // replace with
KPFK - List of Products and Companies to Boycott or http://worldpress.org/feeds/topstories.js
Mike Malloy send Complaints about Limbaugh - UPDATED February//for World Press Review translations and
Shann Nix 9, 2003. Send thank yous to RADIO SHACK, and
Radio Left AMTRAK.
Randi Rhodes
John Rothmann - Update on Overstock.com: "We don't advertise on
Ski & Skinner Rush Limbaugh." ...although their affiliates do.
Ray Taliaferro Send letters to Overstock.
Bernie Ward
WBAI Haven't we had enough of this bellicose burden on
Mike Webb the American airwaves? Are you sick and tired of
Johnny Wendell the Hateful chortling and guffawing - while
Peter Werbe smearing everything that most decent people
WMNF consider the very Freedoms our ancestors or
WKTS Founding Fathers Died to Protect and Honor?

[IEAmerica Radio Network]"...the sponsors of these protests were not peace
protesters at all. They are all talking about
WEB SITES racism, environmental wackoism, feminism or other
liberal causes. Very little about these protests
AdBusters was about the war in Iraq.
Alternet
American Politics If they were for peace, they would give every
Journal dollar they raise to the U.S. defense department
American Prospect because it's the U.S. defense department that
BartCop! keeps the peace and liberates the oppressed in
BuzzFlash the world and gives them the opportunity to have
BushWatch freedom, which is what we want for Iraq. It's
Common Dreams beyond me how anybody can look at these
Consortium News protesters and call them anything other than what
ConWebWatch they are: anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro
Daily Howler Marxists and communists." - Rush Limbaugh
Democrats.com
Dem Underground You can view the rest of his statements on his
FAIR web page where he has singled out groups from the
From The Wilderness A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition in a derogatory and racist
IndyMedia fashion - including several Muslim groups.
Liberal Resurgent Interestingly enough, he made no mention of the
Media Horse Online Pastors, Christian Groups, Veteran Groups, Jewish
Media Channel Groups, or other world organizations who are also
Mother Jones part of the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition.
Michael Moore
Nation There is something we can do about it. We can
New Republic complain directly to the companies that sell
Onion advertising on his show. We can also boycott the
Online Journal same products or institutions he promotes with
Political Strikes his hateful, abhorrent speech and behavior. We've
RackJite made a list for your convenience below.
TalkLeft
Ted Rall Please write to each and every one of these
Tom Tomorrow companies. Tell them why you are no longer
Tom Paine purchasing their wares, foods, or products. Tell
Truthout them that you won't support people like Limbaugh
Village Voice who insult honest working Americans of all races,
creeds and sexual orientation - or his
advertisers. Tell them you'll change the station.
Turn the channel off.

Links liberally Tell them when he's OFF the air you will return
borrowed from to buying their products.And please DO what you
The Lefty Directory say, don't buy what they are selling, make them
feel the pressure of those who can vote with
their dollars.

Tell Rush he's gone too far this time.

And when you are done with his advertisers, write
to Clear Channel's board of directors and tell
them what, when, and why you are not buying. HERE

And it CAN be done! Look at the group that kicked
Limbaugh OFF Amazon.com HERE! Let's Shut him up
or shut him DOWN!

You're Making a Difference! Advertisers respond
to this Action Alert!

- Overstock.com - banner ads are running again,
apparently through an affiliate. Overstock
maintains it does not advertise on Limbaugh. TBTM
action: Send them letters letting them know that
while their banners are on Limbaugh's site,
they're still supporting him - regardless of who
purchased the ad.

- Amtrak - states to have a corporate policy
against advertising on shows such as Rush
Limbaugh. Advertising that is currently running
is part of a barter swap with San Francisco
Convention & Visitors Bureau that ends next week.
They are working on getting these spots removed
from the Rush Limbaugh show. Dan at Amtrak
commended Take Back The Media readers as being an
extremely intelligent, educated bunch and was
impressed by the hundreds of well written letters
received. Official response from the Chief
Marketing Officer. TBTM action: Amtrak removed
from the list. Send them thanks!

- BOSE: claimed to have stopped purchasing
advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show but
listeners have reported hearing Wave Radio ads.
TBTM action: Removal from list.

- Radio Shack: will not buy any advertising
on the Rush Limbaugh show. Read Radio Shack's
official response. TBTM action: Radio Shack
removed from the list. Send them thanks!

- Blue-Emu: says their Rush advertising is
part of a national campaign. In other words, they
intend to continue advertising with Limbaugh.
>>More TBTM action: Email them.

- Avacor: Says they do not support Rush
Limbaugh in any way except for advertising, and
they're taking it to the max - imploring every
person that writes them to "grow some hair!" and
touting their product at every turn. TBTM Action:
Email them.

Here is the List of current Rush Limbaugh
advertisers as of 2/3/03:

Overstock.com
1-800-989-0135
(customer comments and service email)
otherinfo@overstock.com

eharmony
300 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1111
Pasadena, CA 91101
media@eharmony.com
Web contact form

Inverness Medical (maker of stresstabs)
51 Sawyer Road
Waltham, MA 02021
1-800-899-7353 weekdays, 8 am. - 6 p.m. (Eastern
Time.)

Onstar
Online comment form

Geico
communications@geico.com
1-800-947-AUTO

Hotwire Corporate Headquarters
333 Market Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94105
advertising@hotwire.com
1-877-HOTWIRE (468-9473)
415-343-8400

Sleep Number Bed
1-800-438-2233

The Neptune Society of Northern California
Stewart Enterprises
12070 Telegraph Road #107
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Oreck Upright Vacuum Cleaners
Oreck Corporation
100 Plantation Road
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123
Online contact form
1-800-289-5888

Smart & Final
Customer Relations
PO Box 512377
Los Angeles, CA 91001-0377
(Heard on KFI 640 in Los Angeles)

Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee
9151 Grapevine Hwy.
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
Phone (800) 733-1110
(web banner ads on rushlimbaugh.com)

AutoZone Inc.
P.O. Box 2198
Memphis, TN 38101
Phone (901) 495-7185
Fax (901) 495-8374
investor.relations@autozone.com

UPDATED - Citracal - Mission Pharmacal
Bennett Kennedy - Citracal Product Manager
Mission Pharmacal
P.O. Box 786099
San Antonio, TX 78278-6099
Phone:(800) 531-3333

Blue-Emu
Blue Emu refuses to give a contact other than
their generic "info" box: <info@nfidiet.com>
1-800-432-9334
http://www.blue-emu.com/

Red Lobster
customer comment form: CLICK HERE
Or Write to:
P.O. Box 593330
Orlando, FL 32859-3330
Guest Relations Hotline
1-800-LOBSTER (1-800-562-7837)

Lumber Liquidators
Toll Free: 877-645-5347
Contact list:
http://www.lumberliquidators.com/contact_us.html

Avacor (hair loss treatment)
(customer comments email)
comments@avacorusa.com

Lazerguide® (golf instruction tool)
PO Box 807
New Hudson Michigan 48165
1-877-266-6430 (toll free)

Mission Pharmacal Company
10999 IH-10 West Suite 1000
San Antonio, TX 78230
Telephone: (800) 531-3333

General Steel Metal Buildings
1075 South Yukon, Ste. 250
Lakewood, Colorado 80226
Toll Free: 1-888-98-STEEL
Phone: 303-904-4837
Fax: 303-979-0084

Life Quotes, Inc.
32045 Castle Court
Evergreen, CO 80439
1-800-670-5433
info@lifequotes.com.au

Select Comfort Corporation
6105 Trenton Lane N
Minneapolis, MN 55442
Phone: 763-551-7000
Fax: 763-551-7826
investorrelations@selectcomfort.com

Scottrade Inc
12855 Flushing Meadows Drive
Saint Louis, MO 63131
1-800-619-SAVE
support@scottrade.com

RegionalHelpWanted.com, Inc.
1 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 506
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
800-365-8630
845-471-5200
Feedback@RegionalHelpWanted.com

The Swap Shop CLICK HERE
3291 East Sunrise
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
swpshop@aol.com
Phone - 954.791.$WAP

Pfizer Inc
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
212-733-2323

Please send us more Advertisers and Products sold
by Limbaugh. We can either Shut him Up or Shut
him DOWN!

[Image]

Rush Limbaugh BUSTED on Chickenhawk Status!
The mysterious "Greg from Orlando" from the EIB
network gets RUSH Bigtime!

"As with a previous call, when I nicknamed Rush
'The Jabba the Hut of American Politics' (which
stuck and caused him to lose 100 pounds over a
year's time), all of the rest of the show was
dominated by damage-control over my call. A
number of callers took issue with the correct
labeling of most right-wing war-hawks as 'Chicken
Hawks' -- and this allowed Rush to obscure the
issue by claiming that he'd merely not served,
rather than dodged the draft with a bogus 4-F
status. At least nine times that I counted, he
referred to me by name with the usual cheap
smears, and I collected each as a badge of honor
I'm sending to John Kerry to add to his uniform."
>>More

(Editor's Note: We have a wav of this exchange!.
Get it HERE - Only about a half a meg. Windows
users can right click on the "Get it Here" link
to download file and share with others.)



[Top of Page]

who owns the media? | the issue | take action | directories | donate | sponsors | links | about us | contact | home

Copyright 2002, Take Back The Media. | Privacy Policy
All articles linked from this page are copyrighted to the various authors.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fw: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 18:32:13 -0700
From: "Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>,
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
CC: <libnw@immosys.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph A. Rohner III" <realtor@idahojoe.com>
To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; <Lhbeaty@prodigy.net>;
<idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>;
<teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>
Cc: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Ron Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>;
"Rob Oates" <robo1421@cableone.net>; "Phyllis Schatz"
<adelaide31@yahoo.com>; "Patty Hautzinger" <Patzinger@earthlink.net>;
"Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>; "Lloyd Barron"
<Lloyd@warbarron.com>; "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; "J. L.
Oyler" <jlo@surfbest.net>; "Bill Anderson" <region2chair@lpidaho.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....

> Mr. Gookin, you have gotten my undivided attention.
>
> Your statement below has finally convinced me that you are not good for
this
> political party, or it's philosophy. Furthermore, while I have been
silent
> for the months and months of your ranting in the chat rooms, hoping to
give
> you the benefit of all doubt, I am convinced that your true colors have
> spilled out. You have demonstrated redundantly to me that you sir, don't
> understand our philosophy and that you probably won't. If you persist in
> this apparent attempt to dump the pledge, I shall make it my personal
> mission to see you disenfranchised from the Libertarian Political Party by
> any legitimate means available to those who sign the pledge. Believe that
> sir.
>
> About a decade or so ago, certain non-thinkers at the National level tried
> to dump the pledge. They failed. So shall you.
>
> Joe Rohner
>
> PS: Someone please forward this to the appropriate chat rooms as I don't
> subscribe. I want everyone in this party to know that in my view, Dan
> Gookin is not fit for office in this party. Thanks
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>
> To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; <Lhbeaty@prodigy.net>;
> <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>;
> <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; <realtor@idahojoe.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:57 PM
> Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....
>
>
> > At 3:48 PM -0800 2/8/03, larry fullmer wrote:
> > >what i continue to wonder about, dan, given your right to step aside
> here,
> > >is whether nor not you agree that christian has no right to be on the
> > >judical committie, short of meeting the existing requirements of ilp
> > >membership?
> >
> > Okay; No, I don't think it should be.
> >
> > I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to step forward and say "I
> > am a Libertarian" has the right to do so regardless of whether
> > they've paid the party fine or signed the pledge. I would accept all
> > people equally.
> >
> > I realize others don't like this, but I feel this stance is more
> > Libertarian minded. Judging others on their ability or willingness to
> > fork over money to some useless national organization or sign a
> > pledge means nothing to me. It's what they do that makes a difference.
> >
> > DAN
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re:Arianna
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:53:33 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

>

Paul wrote:
What do you mean global warming isn't a concern? Only
duffeses Like Falwell believe god gave us the right to rape
the earth. Who believes in GAIA here? I don't! Also I suppose
we should deplete all the fossil fuels left in the earth just because
they are there? You believers in god claim he gave us a free will
to do right and wrong. Don't you think humans should exercise
that decision making when in comes to the environment? If not why
don't we cut all trees down in the earth? Then strip mine the entire
planet. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not for veg heads hugging trees.
I'm not a green, just a pragmatist. Why use vehicles that consume
two to three times the fuel? Just so you can pad your greedy fat
ass?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re:Arianna
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:45:55 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

"Paul Freedom" wrote:
>What do you mean global warming isn't a concern?
[Remainder of emotional, insult-laden rant snipped for brevity]

If global warming is a concern, then all of the following MUST be true:

1. The global temperature is actually rising.
2. This rising temperature is bad.
3. The rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere are causing the
temperature rise.
4. The way to solve the problem is to cut down on fossil fuel use at all
costs.

If any one of the above statements is false, then the global-warming
hysteria is misguided. (And since Arianna is only asking for voluntary
cooperation, I'll let you off the hook on #4, partially.) The problem is
that all are false.

1. The temperature measurements which show rising worldwide temperatures
are problematic. Many tend to be in urban areas which means that as cities
have grown, the "Heat Island" effect bumps the temperatures up by, in some
cases, an average of 10 degrees. Also, sea water temperature measurements
are taken by ships crossing the oceans. As weather forecasting has evolved
from a black art involving mainly what a seaman could see from the mast, to
a science complete with satellite photos, ships have been able to avoid
storms and sail more often in peaceful, sun-lit, warmer waters. The only
reliable, comprehensive worldwide temperature measurements are those made
by satellites which gives us a record that goes back only 30 years. If I
recall correctly, these show a slight cooling trend, if anything.

2. Bill Anderson posted a link to a site which showed how the
"global-warming" fear-mongers have a custom-designed effect for every
region of the world. If you're from Siberia, then global warming will make
you colder. If you're afraid of floods, you'll get flooded. If you're
afraid of rain, you'll get too much. If you're afraid of drought, that's
what you'll get, etc. Most of it is raw speculation and has little or no
science to back it up.

3. The hypothesis is that the minor rise in carbon-dioxide will cause a
slight increase in water-vapor which is a much more powerful green-house
gas which will in turn cause a greater increase in water-vapor which will
raise the temperature. In other words, there will be some kind of a
positive feedback mechanism which will start to run away. That in itself
is a good reason to doubt the theory. Positive feedback mechanisms seldom
occur in nature because they are so unstable. Think of it as a large round
rock at the top of a hill. You push the rock a little and it starts
rolling. Since it is at the top of a hill, it will keep rolling and
picking up speed. That is a positive feedback mechanism. On the other
hand, if the rock is in a bowl-shaped depression, you have a negative
feedback mechanism. If you push the rock in one direction, it gets harder
to push the further you go, and if you let go, it rolls down past where it
was, then comes back again, until friction finally stops it somewhere near
where it started. The fact that the geologic record shows we've had colder
and hotter times on this world with higher carbon dioxide concentrations in
the atmosphere tells me that there is a negative-feedback mechanism
involved--otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are.

4. Here is where the environmentalists *really* have it wrong. Ever since
Thomas Malthus (in the late 1800s) "proved" that human population would
soon exceed the "carrying capacity of the Earth", we've had people running
around saying that we'd run out of food or something else. They've always
been wrong, because of one thing: they didn't take into account any
technological development. Now, they will deny this, of course, by
claiming that their models *do* take technological developments into
account. But what their models do is claim that technological development
will simply require more resources per person. The fact is that they've
generally (1) got it backwards and (2) oppose technologies that actually
meet their claimed goals, and (3) miss the point that technological
development makes more resources available per person.

You see, we generally migrate to new technologies because they make things
more convenient, safer, quicker, or less costly than the technologies being
replaced. If I don't drive my SUV today, I don't have to go out and pitch
some hay into a manger. And because my SUV doesn't use an agricultural
product, it doesn't compete with a human being for food. Of course, with
the improvements in agricultural technology (including, now
genetically-modified plants) we are approaching the point where we probably
can fuel my SUV with an agricultural product (like Bill's E85) without
someone going hungry.

A hundred years ago, people looking ahead (especially if they were using
the models the environmentalist-wacko crowd has now) would have been afraid
that we'd cut down all the forests (which, in a way, would have been fine
because we were going to need all that land for farming), not be able to
feed our people, and run out of coal by the end of the century--and to top
it all off, the temperature would be rising to 6 degrees above where it is
now. Instead, we now have more forest land, less farm land, more people
(and well-fed, I might add), 500 years worth of known reserves of coal
(which could be converted into oil, if necessary), several new and much
more convenient sources of energy (solar, nuclear, oil, natural gas, wind,
thermal, hydroelectric).

While the US's "proven oil reserves" keep going down (at least in terms of
how many years we have left in them), it's apparently not a problem since
we keep making more new oil fields around the US off-limits to
drilling. There are fairly large fields off every coast, in ANWR, Wyoming,
and probably a few other places, where we can't drill because the "greens"
don't want us to. What they don't understand is that some of the dollars
spent on higher-than-necessary fuel are dollars that don't get spent
developing some of these alternative fuels and energy sources, or
developing ways of squeezing more use out of given amounts of energy or
fuel. In other words, technologies won't get developed to do the very
things these "greens" claim to want.

In short, the most likely cause of environmental catastrophe is
environmentalist-wacko nutcases successfully arguing their case against
each "demon technology" du-jour.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Potassium Iodate-Be Prepared for Dirty Bomb
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:10:08 -0800
From: Paul Freedom <nepal@teleport.com>
To: APFN <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>,
Constitutional Patriots Opposing Prohibition <cp3@yahoogroups.com>,
News-Editorials-christiancommonlaw
<News-Editorials@christiancommonlaw-gov.org>,
PIML <piml@yahoogroups.com>, libnw <libnw@immosys.com>,
Mary Starrett <marys@kpdq.com>

http://www.thymuskinshampoo.com/KIO3/potassiumiodate.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

What if there was a nuclear event, a power-plant explodes and spews out tons
of radioactive gasses and particles and suddenly YOU and your family are in
danger?

You know that you live pretty far away from the reactor, but the wind still
carries the fallout to your town, even though you live well beyond the
"10-mile danger zone"...


The answer is
[KIO3 potassium iodate]

"The Anti-Radiation Pill"

[Potassium Iodate kio3]

The problem is radioactive iodine caused by fallout from a nuclear accident
or incident. Prevent irreparable harm to your children, your loved ones and
you.

You have seen it on CNN, Fox News ABC and in Newspapers across the US, and
heard us on ABC Radio.

Click here to listen to Radio Interview

with Chuck Fenwick, Chief Instructor, Surgery, Fractures, Pharmacy, Trauma.
(Former) USN: MN, HM3, FMF, 8404, 1st Mar Div, 1st Recon, RVN 69-70; Air
Force: Medic.


We distribute "The Anti-Radiation Pill", which blocks radiation from the
thyroid .

We purchase from the ONLY FDA Approved and Inspected manufacturer of KI and
KIO3™ in the World.

Important Links Below:

Why KI03 KI03 FAQs How much KI03 Do I Need Important Read
Usability Order KI03 Who is at risk

The military stationed in the area are given an Anti-Radiation
Pill, one that blocks the thyroid from absorbing the radiation.
Four days after the event, the fallout begins to fall on the
ground. It is too late to distribute the pills to the
population...

"...But no-one warned us about the radioactive rain...Now I am 17, and for
seven years I have been living with thyroid disease..." -From the book
Voices of Chernobyl

What I am about to tell you may save your life, and more than just that, the
lives of your children.

Please listen carefully:

You have a gland called the thyroid. This small gland,
normally about the size of a golf ball split in half, is
responsible for secretion of growth hormones. Many studies
conclude: The only proven cause of cancer of the thyroid
during childhood is RADIATION.

That’s right, radiation released by any type of nuclear
accident, attack, fallout, gasses venting from an atomic bomb
test or a nuclear power-plant. The real danger to the thyroid
is the type of radiation released from these hazards is in
the form of radioactive iodine. That is what the thyroid
loves: Iodine.
The radioactive Iodine is
absorbed by the thyroid and
can cause thyroid disease
and cancer later on.

Sometimes it only takes a
short time if the victim is
a child! Why? Because a
child’s thyroid is very
active and helping the
child to grow. The smaller
the child, the more active
the thyroid is.

The release of radiation at
Chernobyl clearly proves
that radioactive iodine
released during the
accident caused cancer of
the thyroid in children to
go up 100 times the normal,
and the percentage is still
climbing.

Click HERE for article on
Chernobyl and thyroid.
[thyroid cancer, atomic bomb radiation, nuclear radiation]

I am telling you this because I want you to know that the threat is real,
still present and does NOT have to be in the form of a nuclear attack.
Experts agree that it is very possible that Nuclear Plants are terrorist
targets.
(Click here for more information from our government-sponsored "Center for
Defense Information")

Do you live within 200 miles of a nuclear facility? Would you protect your
family if there was a nuclear accident or event - if you could? Of course
you would.

"HOW do I protect my family and myself from Radiation from a Nuclear Event
or Radioactive-Iodine- induced thyroid cancer?

By taking an inexpensive, non-prescription Anti-Radiation Pill
called KIO3™, or Potassium Iodate.

"What is The Anti-Radiation Pill (or Potassium Iodate)?"

Potassium Iodate (KIO3™) is an Anti-Radiation Pill. KIO3™ will
shield (or block) your body's Thyroid gland and prevent it from
absorbing Radioactive Iodine during a nuclear emergency. For
radiation that is not immediately lethal, this is your body's
most sensitive organ to its effects. -- It works to prevent the
radiation effects from Nuclear Power Plant disasters, Nuclear
Weapons or Atomic Bombs, Terrorist "dirty bombs", Radioactive
Spills, Nuclear Reactor Leaks, Melt-downs, or even Japan's
Uranium enrichment accident.
(More in-depth Questions and Answers are HERE on our other site)

Other facts about KIO3 Anti-Radiation Pills:

* You may have seen it featured in Newsweek, seen it on TV on Fox News,
CNN, ABC or heard us on WLS- AM Chicago Radio or even heard our product
mentioned during the Rush Limbaugh or Doctor Laura shows.
* All of Britain/UK use Potassium Iodate/KIO3™ as "The Anti-Radiation
Pill of Choice" because of the ability to dose children and its long
shelf life. (See the UK Government Department of Health Documents
Here.)
* It is approved by the World Health Organization for World-Wide use as
an Anti-Radiation Pill.
* It is a stable-iodine substance in a convenient tablet form that can be
divided for smaller child dosages.
* The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the WHO (World Health
Organization) recognize KIO3™ as an "Anti-Radiation Pill" or "An
Emergency Thyroid Blocker"
* It has a long shelf life of 10 years or more
* It is inexpensive – about $25 for a bottle of 200 tablets which will be
sufficient to supply 2 adults for 50 days. A family of 4 should buy 3
bottles.
* It is not bitter and children can keep the tablet down.
* It is manufactured in FDA approved facilities, guaranteed fresh and has
certification of 99.70+% purity by Medical Corps.
* Millions of people from many countries all over the world have bought
this life-saving product
* It is common in Europe, Australia, Africa and Asia to have this
life-protecting product on hand for families

ATTENTION: You MUST have this product on hand and take it when the event or
accident occurs for it to be effective. If you do not block your thyroid
with KIO3™ before the radioactive fallout reaches you then it will be TOO
LATE!

"What should I do?"

* Purchase the product for you and your family. Just as you
should have a first-aid kit – you should have a supply of
KIO3™ for your family. Just as you have insurance for your
car in case of an accident, you should have a supply of KIO3™
for your family.
* Click HERE for the pricing page and the secure server order
page. We have a no-risk money-back Purchase Guarantee and we
have a Lifetime Replacement Guarantee!

"Where can I get it?"

* We are a North-American Distributor and purchase from the
manufacturer of KIO3™ Anti-Radiation Pills, so our stock is
always made fresh each day for YOU.
* Click HERE for order


Be aware: If there is a nuclear hazard event or nuclear emergency in this
country for whatever the reason, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THIS
PRODUCT FOR ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY. Why? Because it will be gone. There will
not be any left. Grabbed up and used.

There is another product that is also available called KI or Potassium
Iodide. It performs the exact same function as KIO3™ (Potassium Iodate), but
there are negative issues with KI:

* KI has a shorter shelf life.
* KI is extremely bitter – children have problems keeping it down and
even some adults cannot handle the bitterness.
* KI is more expensive.

Other than these reasons, this product can be used just as KIO3™ is used.

"What if I want the superior KIO3™ and I have a supply of KI?" OR "What if I
have a supply of KI (Potassium Iodide) already and it is getting OLD?"


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Americans! This is Dr. Larry Priano of Medical Corps and as
a physician, I want to give you some important information about
our civil defense.

If there were a nuclear event in our country, radioactive iodine
would be released, which can damage your thyroid gland or even
cause thyroid cancer. This may be prevented by taking potassium
iodate- KIO3™- a thyroid blocker which is the only known
protection for this problem, immediately after fallout.

Medical Corps' KIO3™ tablets are stocked around the world for such
an emergency and they are formulated for both adults and children;
particularly children. The cost is reasonable, they work and could
save your life. They should be part of every family's emergency
kit.

"Knowledge Replaces Fear"

How to order:

Simply click on the Buy_Me button to purchase or visit our store click here

1 Bottle KIO3™ (200 tablets 85 mg each tablet) - shipped by USPS Priority
mail -

$25.00 plus $3.50 shipping [Image]


3 Bottle set of KIO3™ (200 tablets in each 85 mg each tablet)- shipped by
USPS Priority mail -

$65.00 plus $3.50 shipping [Image]


7 Bottle set of KIO3™ (200 tablets in each 85 mg each tablet)- shipped by
USPS Priority mail -

$135.00 plus $3.50 shipping [Image]

Important - Please read the followng:

BEFORE YOU TAKE POTASSIUM IODATE (or any Thyroid Blocker)

Do NOT take a Thyroid Blocker UNLESS the authorities tell you to. This is
not to be used as a supplement. We repeat, do not take KIO3 or any other
Thyroid Blocker UNLESS the authorities tell you to!

Please Consider the following:

* Are you sensitive to iodine?
* Do you suffer from dermatitis herpetiformis (a skin disease)?
* Do you suffer from hypocomplementaemic vasculitis (an inflammation of
the blood vessels)?
* Have you ever been treated for thyrotoxicosis (a condition resulting
from an overactive thyroid gland)?
* Do you have problems with your kidneys?
* Do you have, or are you being treated for problems with your adrenal
glands?
* Are you suffering from dehydration or cramp due to extreme heat?
* Are you taking quinidine, captopril or enalopril?
* Are you currently taking a diuretic (“water tablets”)?

IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE
TAKING ANY THYROID BLOCKER--KI (POTASSIUM IODIDE) OR KIO3 (POTASSIUM IODATE)

TAKING POTASSIUM IODATE ANTI-RADIATION PILLS

The tablets should be taken as a single daily dose within 3 hours of
exposure, or up to 10 hours after exposure, although this is less effective.
Authorities will tell you if there is a need to take KIO3.

The usual recommended “daily dose” is as follows:

* Adults (including the elderly) 2 tablets
* Children aged 3-12 years 1 tablet
* Children aged 1 month-3 years 1/2 tablet
* Newborns to 1 month 1/4 tablet

For young children or newborn children, the 1/2 or 1/4 tablet may be
crushed and taken mixed with milk or water. Under emergency conditions
1/2 tablet may be given to newborns as a starting dose.

In cases of prolonged exposure, repeat dosing may be necessary:

* 1-2 days for a “small” reactor leak
* 10 to 14 days for a “minor” event
* Longer for a catastrophic event

If you are pregnant or breast-feeding you should normally not take more
than two doses for a minor “reactor leak”. Babies up to a month old
should only received one dose for a minor “reactor leak”. However, this
should be determined by authorities.

If you swallow a lot of the tablets all together, or if you think a child
has accidentally swallowed any of the tablets, contact your nearest hospital
emergency room or Doctor immediately.

AFTER TAKING POTASSIUM IODATE

Potassium Iodate can be taken by the majority of people, without any
problems. However, like medicines or even supplements, it may occasionally
cause side-effects in some people. These may include:

* An overactive thyroid gland (characterized by weight loss, increased
appetite, intolerance to heat and increased sweating)
* An enlarged thyroid gland with or without the development of a
condition in which there is thickening of the skin and body tissues,
most notably the face)
* Although rarely, hypersensitivity reactions such as rash, swollen
salivary glands, headache, wheezing or coughing, and stomach upsets may
occur. If you have these or any other effects, while taking Potassium
Iodate or Potassium Iodide tell a doctor immediately.

Keep In mind that if you are allergic to any Iodine product, then you will
also be allergic to Radioactive Iodine. Please consult your doctor if you
have any concerns.




[Image]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:12:02 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: February 6, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Justice Department's actions in Martha Stewart case
reveal double standard, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC – Reports that federal investigators may file criminal
charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling
question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe
facing criminal charges as well?

After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic
National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in
stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their
life
savings.

"Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and
another for political celebrities?" asked Geoffrey Neale, national
chair of the Libertarian Party. "It's fair to ask whether Cheney and
McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the
federal government."

Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on
Thursday
that they have "a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart," who is
accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping
4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one
day
before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer
drug
– an action that caused the company's stock to plummet.

But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double
standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney
and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing.

* Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August
2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly
thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost
their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal
prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months.

* McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and
former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18
million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in
telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has
since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock,
McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry.

"Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to
Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission?" Neale asked.
"And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on
Cheney and McAuliffe?

"The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging
in selective prosecution – and if you're a powerful federal official
you're probably not going to be selected.

"But if you're an ordinary American – or a TV celebrity who can be
exploited to benefit someone's career – you'd better abide by the law
or risk having your life turned upside-down by zealous federal
bureaucrats."

Neale emphasized that Libertarians don't know whether the specific
accusations against Stewart, Cheney or McAuliffe are true – only that
their cases are being handled very differently by government
prosecutors.

The result, he said, is that "many people will wonder if justice is a
game in America – in which certain individuals can lose their freedom
and others always seem to win a get-out-of-jail free card."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:26:32 -0500
From: "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

> ===============================
> NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
> 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
> Washington DC 20037
> World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
> ===============================
> For release: February 6, 2003
> ===============================

included:

> WASHINGTON, DC - Reports that federal investigators may file criminal
> charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling
> question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe
> facing criminal charges as well?

> After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic
> National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in
> stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their
> life
> savings.

> "Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and
> another for political celebrities?" asked Geoffrey Neale, national
> chair of the Libertarian Party. "It's fair to ask whether Cheney and
> McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the
> federal government."

> Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on
> Thursday
> that they have "a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart," who is
> accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping
> 4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one
> day
> before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer
> drug
> - an action that caused the company's stock to plummet.

> But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double
> standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney
> and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing.

> * Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August
> 2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly
> thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost
> their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal
> prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and
> Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months.

> * McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and
> former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18
> million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in
> telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has
> since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock,
> McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry.

> "Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to
> Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission?" Neale asked.
> "And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on
> Cheney and McAuliffe?

> "The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging
> in selective prosecution - and if you're a powerful federal official
> you're probably not going to be selected.

Oh, horse shit. What about Abscam?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Martha Stewart case
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:03:12 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

My how the mighty have fallen. Is this really the best that the national
LP can do? Let's compare: on the one side, we have an out-and-out,
open-and-shut insider-trading case where someone traded on "material
information" that was going to (and did) affect the price of the stock; on
the other side a politician divests himself of private stock holdings under
political pressure (to end a supposed, "potential conflict-of-interest")
several months before he planned to and then the stock tanks several months
after he had originally planned to sell. Both got investigated, the
obviously fraudulent one is getting prosecuted and the obviously innocent
one is not. That's not a "double standard," that's justice!

Now as for the Terry McAuliffe issue, I've long thought that one was a real
issue. I figured that it was a little more of the Clinton sliminess that
was getting him off the hook. But since the LP is going to compare
McAuliffe to Cheney, it sort of makes me wonder if there just isn't some
other innocuous explanation for McAuliffe. When you make a bad case--it
sullies your reputation for any good cases you might be making.

Pretty sad.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

From the Libertarian Party
>===============================
>NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
>2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>Washington DC 20037
>World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
>===============================
>For release: February 6, 2003
>===============================
>For additional information:
>George Getz, Press Secretary
>Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
>E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
>===============================
>
>Justice Department's actions in Martha Stewart case
>reveal double standard, Libertarians say
>
>WASHINGTON, DC ­ Reports that federal investigators may file criminal
>charges against celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart raise a troubling
>question, Libertarians say: Why aren't Dick Cheney and Terry McAuliffe
>facing criminal charges as well?
>
>After all, both the vice president and the head of the Democratic
>National Committee have been accused of selling millions of dollars in
>stock before its value plummeted and ordinary investors lost their
>life
>savings.
>
>"Is there one standard of justice for television celebrities and
>another for political celebrities?" asked Geoffrey Neale, national
>chair of the Libertarian Party. "It's fair to ask whether Cheney and
>McAuliffe have been given political immunity by their friends in the
>federal government."
>
>Sources inside the Justice Department confided to reporters on
>Thursday
>that they have "a solid criminal case against Martha Stewart," who is
>accused of insider trading and obstruction of justice after dumping
>4,000 shares of ImClone stock last year. Stewart's action came one
>day
>before the Food and Drug Administration rejected the firm's cancer
>drug
>­ an action that caused the company's stock to plummet.
>
>But the investigation of Stewart has created a troubling double
>standard, Libertarians point out, because politicians such as Cheney
>and McAuliffe have gotten rich doing the exact same thing.
>
>* Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton Co., made $18.5 million in August
>2000 when he sold his shares of company stock for $52 each. Shortly
>thereafter, the stock plunged to $13, and many ordinary investors lost
>their life savings. But instead of being referred to federal
>prosecutors, Cheney's case was quietly referred to the Securities and
>Exchange Commission, where it has languished for months.
>
>* McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and
>former chief fund-raiser for President Bill Clinton, reaped an $18
>million profit in 1999 on an investment of $100,000 in
>telecommunications company Global Crossing. Though the company has
>since gone bankrupt and many investors are holding worthless stock,
>McAuliffe has escaped a criminal inquiry.
>
>"Why isn't Martha Stewart's case sitting on a shelf right next to
>Cheney's over at the Securities and Exchange Commission?" Neale asked.
>"And why aren't federal prosecutors threatening to slap handcuffs on
>Cheney and McAuliffe?
>
>"The answer is obvious: The Justice Department has a habit of engaging
>in selective prosecution ­ and if you're a powerful federal official
>you're probably not going to be selected.
>
>"But if you're an ordinary American ­ or a TV celebrity who can be
>exploited to benefit someone's career ­ you'd better abide by the law
>or risk having your life turned upside-down by zealous federal
>bureaucrats."
>
>Neale emphasized that Libertarians don't know whether the specific
>accusations against Stewart, Cheney or McAuliffe are true ­ only that
>their cases are being handled very differently by government
>prosecutors.
>
>The result, he said, is that "many people will wonder if justice is a
>game in America ­ in which certain individuals can lose their freedom
>and others always seem to win a get-out-of-jail free card."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: membership statistics - 31 January 2003
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:50:01 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

National Libertarian Party Membership Statistics

Statistics as of 31 January 2003

Total dues-paying members in areas with affiliate parties: 22689
Overall density: 79.7 members per million population

Change since Growth %Growth Growth/pop
four years ago (31Jan1999) -7738 -25.4 -27.2
record high (30Nov1999) -10806 -32.3 -37.9
last pres. election (31Oct2000)-10082 -30.8 -35.4
convention (30Jun2002) -2350 -9.4 -8.3
31 December 2002 (one month) -182 -0.8 -0.6

Highest Ranking States (growth since 31 December 2002 (one
month))

Number Density #Growth %Growth Growth/pop
CA 3933 NH 191.4 NJ 24 NJ 4.6 VT 3.3
GA 1228 AK 179.6 IN 18 ME 3.2 ME 3.1
TX 1228 VT 156.6 NC 10 IN 3.1 IN 2.9
FL 1195 CO 146.9 GA 9 MS 2.6 NJ 2.8
MI 1011 GA 146.5 OR 5 VT 2.1 WY 2.0
PA 885 WA 129.9 WI 5 NC 1.9 NM 1.6
IL 829 NV 122.0 ME 4 WY 1.7 OR 1.4
NY 779 DC 120.7 NM 3 WI 1.6 NC 1.2
WA 778 WY 119.3 FL 2 NM 1.5 GA 1.1
OH 776 CA 114.0 MS 2 OR 1.4 WI 0.9
VA 702 NM 109.9 VT 2 GA 0.7 MS 0.7
MA 654 ID 106.0 OK 1 OK 0.7 OK 0.3
CO 649 OR 106.0 WY 1 FL 0.2 FL 0.1
IN 607 MA 102.5 IA 0 IA 0.0 IA 0.0
NJ 547 MI 101.2 ND 0 ND 0.0 ND 0.0
NC 544 ME 99.5 SD 0 SD 0.0 SD 0.0
AZ 416 IN 99.3 AK -1 NY -0.1 NY -0.1
MD 383 VA 97.7 AR -1 AZ -0.5 KY -0.2
OR 368 MT 92.9 DE -1 KS -0.5 AR -0.4
MO 356 DE 84.2 KS -1 IL -0.7 AZ -0.4
TN 354 HI 80.9 KY -1 KY -0.7 KS -0.4
AL 314 AZ 78.4 NY -1 AR -0.8 IL -0.5
MN 314 CT 77.1 WV -1 TN -0.8 TN -0.5
WI 313 FL 72.9 AZ -2 AK -0.9 WV -0.6
CT 264 KS 72.7 DC -2 CA -1.2 LA -0.9
NV 257 PA 72.0 HI -2 NH -1.2 MN -1.0
SC 248 MD 71.3 ID -2 NV -1.2 TX -1.0
NH 241 AL 70.3 NE -3 WV -1.3 AL -1.1
NM 201 OH 68.2 NH -3 ID -1.4 MO -1.1
KS 196 UT 67.4 NV -3 MI -1.4 DE -1.3
IA 181 NC 66.5 TN -3 DE -1.5 OH -1.3
LA 154 IL 66.4 LA -4 AL -1.6 CA -1.4
OK 154 NJ 64.5 RI -4 MN -1.6 MI -1.4
UT 153 MO 63.2 UT -4 MA -1.7 NV -1.4
KY 144 MN 63.1 AL -5 MO -1.7 PA -1.4
ID 140 IA 61.9 MN -5 TX -1.7 ID -1.5
ME 128 TN 61.7 IL -6 CO -1.8 AK -1.6
AR 120 SC 61.0 MO -6 OH -1.9 HI -1.6
AK 114 WI 57.9 MT -6 PA -1.9 MA -1.7
HI 99 TX 57.6 CT -7 HI -2.0 SC -1.7
VT 96 NE 49.6 SC -7 WA -2.0 NE -1.8
NE 85 ND 48.9 MA-11 VA -2.2 UT -1.8
MT 84 SD 48.9 CO-12 LA -2.5 CT -2.0
MS 79 RI 46.3 MI-14 UT -2.5 VA -2.2
WV 76 AR 44.6 OH-15 CT -2.6 NH -2.4
DC 69 OK 44.5 VA-16 SC -2.7 CO -2.7
DE 67 WV 42.2 WA-16 DC -2.8 WA -2.7
WY 59 NY 41.0 MD-17 NE -3.4 MD -3.2
RI 49 KY 35.4 PA-17 MD -4.3 DC -3.5
SD 37 LA 34.5 TX-21 MT -6.7 RI -3.8
ND 31 MS 27.6 CA-48 RI -7.5 MT -6.6

areas with currently recognized affiliates: 22689
other US areas (territories, etc.) 12
APO/FPO 29
non-US 11
------
22741

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: New from Libertarians for Life
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:56:00 -0500
From: "Doris Gordon" <libertarian@erols.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

LIBERTARIANS FOR LIFE RELEASES
THREE NEW ARTICLES

In "A Libertarian Atheist Answers
'Pro-Choice Catholics'," Doris Gordon
challenges the abortion-choice reasoning
of such figures as Michigan's Governor
Jennifer Granholm. Gordon considers the
Church's teaching and observes that
"faith and reason arrive at the same
[pro-life] position."

In "'Personally Opposed' to Abortion?,"
John Walker critiques the view that one
can both accept fetal personhood and
demand legalized abortion. Even those
who support abortion choice, he writes,
should find that combination "scary."

In "When in Doubt...", Doris Gordon
responds to a Planned Parenthood
rationale (or lack thereof) for abortion.

CONTACT: Libertarians for Life, 13424
Hathaway Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20906,
301/4600-4141; fax 301/871-8552,
libertarian@erols.com,
http://www.L4L.org.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 20:47:01 -0800
From: "IGBUNU GODWIN" <g.godwin12345@caramail.com>
Reply-To: igbunu@caramail.com
To: libnw@immosys.com

GODWIN IGBUNU
g.godwin12345@caramail.com


Dear Sir,

With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
capability as a result of the death of one of our
contractor (Beneficiary).

I am igbunu godwin, Chief Auditor, Special Project
and Foreign Contract Regularization and Disbursement,
in the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation
of Federal Republic of Nigeria. We work in hand with
the Senate Committee on Foreign Contract Payment. Our
duty is to ensure that all contractors are paid
their contract sum in due time.

This first payment quarter, a total of 30 contractors
were short listed for payment and about 25 of them
have been paid remaining about 5 (Five), information
reaching this office indicates that one among the
remaining has been reported dead. His name is Mr.
Gerrand Schwartz from Sweden, he died in the last Air
France Concorde plane crash. Meanwhile he finished the
execution of his contract December 19th 1999. But
since his death, nobody has come forward to put a
claim to his contract fund which is about
US$7,500,000.00 Million (seven Million five hundred
thousand U.S Dollars) that is why I need your
immediate assistance to expedite the transfer of the
contract amount.

With my position as a Director in the Department of
Contract Regularisation and Disbursement, I will
regularize all the necessary documents and present
your company as the bona-fide beneficiary of this fund
in as much as you respond within 48 hours for
respect of this important message. Your unreserved
cooperation in this business is just what we require
for a successful and hitch - free transaction.
Necessary measures to ensure a risk - free and fool
proof transaction and confidentiality has been taken.

Kindly signify your interest by replying via my
personal e -mail address above. Upon receipt of your
positive reply we shall discuss on (1) Basic Program
for Operation (2) Financial Status as to ascertain
your capability. Upon completion of this transaction
I have decided to give you 30% of the total sum, 60%
of the fund which is our share will be used for
investment in any foreign country of our choice.
While 10% has been mapped out to take care
of any minor expenses incurred.
Take note that this project will last for only 10
working days.
I expect your response in time (within 48 hours) as
time is of great essence in this transaction.

God Bless and Kind Regards,
Godwin Igbunu.

Please you can also reach me with this email
address:igbunu@caramail.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:42:15 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I keep hearing about these Nigerian scams. Never had seen one, though. I
can't believe that anyone would fall for it. Yeah, sure. I suppose the
story is that this "contractor" supposedly did the work, then died and his
heirs and his company aren't able to establish that they are owed the
money. But if some schmuck comes forward, they can claim the money
(provided that they kick most of it back to the contracting officials.)

Riiiight.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 20:47 02/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
>GODWIN IGBUNU
>g.godwin12345@caramail.com
>
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
> soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
> as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
> capability as a result of the death of one of our
> contractor (Beneficiary).
>
> I am igbunu godwin, Chief Auditor, Special Project
> and Foreign Contract Regularization and Disbursement,
> in the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation
> of Federal Republic of Nigeria. We work in hand with
> the Senate Committee on Foreign Contract Payment. Our
> duty is to ensure that all contractors are paid
> their contract sum in due time.
>
> This first payment quarter, a total of 30 contractors
> were short listed for payment and about 25 of them
> have been paid remaining about 5 (Five), information
> reaching this office indicates that one among the
> remaining has been reported dead. His name is Mr.
> Gerrand Schwartz from Sweden, he died in the last Air
> France Concorde plane crash. Meanwhile he finished the
> execution of his contract December 19th 1999. But
> since his death, nobody has come forward to put a
> claim to his contract fund which is about
> US$7,500,000.00 Million (seven Million five hundred
> thousand U.S Dollars) that is why I need your
> immediate assistance to expedite the transfer of the
> contract amount.
>
> With my position as a Director in the Department of
> Contract Regularisation and Disbursement, I will
> regularize all the necessary documents and present
> your company as the bona-fide beneficiary of this fund
> in as much as you respond within 48 hours for
> respect of this important message. Your unreserved
> cooperation in this business is just what we require
> for a successful and hitch - free transaction.
> Necessary measures to ensure a risk - free and fool
> proof transaction and confidentiality has been taken.
>
> Kindly signify your interest by replying via my
> personal e -mail address above. Upon receipt of your
> positive reply we shall discuss on (1) Basic Program
> for Operation (2) Financial Status as to ascertain
> your capability. Upon completion of this transaction
> I have decided to give you 30% of the total sum, 60%
> of the fund which is our share will be used for
> investment in any foreign country of our choice.
> While 10% has been mapped out to take care
> of any minor expenses incurred.
> Take note that this project will last for only 10
> working days.
> I expect your response in time (within 48 hours) as
> time is of great essence in this transaction.
>
> God Bless and Kind Regards,
> Godwin Igbunu.
>
> Please you can also reach me with this email
> address:igbunu@caramail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:05:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

IGBUNU GODWIN wrote:
> GODWIN IGBUNU
> g.godwin12345@caramail.com
> With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
> soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
> as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
> capability as a result of the death of one of our
> contractor (Beneficiary).

THIS IS SPAM!

Bill, is there anyway to block crap like this from coming in here?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: 11 Feb 2003 20:35:54 -0700
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 20:05, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> IGBUNU GODWIN wrote:
> > GODWIN IGBUNU
> > g.godwin12345@caramail.com
> > With profound interest and in utmost confidence, I am
> > soliciting your immediate assistance or co-operation
> > as to enable us round up an opportunity within my
> > capability as a result of the death of one of our
> > contractor (Beneficiary).
>
> THIS IS SPAM!
>
> Bill, is there anyway to block crap like this from coming in here?

Not reliably.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: TREAT AS URGENT
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:27:29 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > THIS IS SPAM!
> > Bill, is there anyway to block crap like this from coming in here?

And you replied:
> Not reliably.

Oh wonderful! Then I suppose the best thing we can do is simply ignore
it and "hope" it goes away, or doesn't get worse. Once we get
ourselves on several address lists for spam artists, this could easily
become a real annoying problem.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:55:04 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

The following articles from the February 24, 2003 issue of The New
American are now available online.

----------------------------------------
The February 24, 2003 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/02-24-2003/
----------------------------------------

Aiding and Abetting the "Axis"
Even as he prepares to mount an unnecessary war against a prostrate
Iraq,
President Bush is offering critical aid to Saddam's more dangerous
axis-mate, North Korea.

The State of Big Government
President Bush's State of the Union address was one part stirring
rhetoric, five parts socialist vaporings for even more unrestrained
Big
Government.

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

Do not reply to this e-mail. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change your
e-mail address, please visit:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm To contact the staff,
visit: http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The New American - February 24, 2003 Issue
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:35:49 -0800
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Frank,
>The February 24, 2003 issue is available at:
>http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/02-24-2003/
>----------------------------------------
>
>Aiding and Abetting the "Axis"
>Even as he prepares to mount an unnecessary war against a prostrate
>Iraq,
>President Bush is offering critical aid to Saddam's more dangerous
>axis-mate, North Korea.

So, it appears that once again, the Bush administration has shown that it
understands the dictum that "diplomacy is saying 'nice doggy' while you
reach for a big stick." So I'm supposed to get all hot and bothered about
that?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:42:06 +0800
From: "Frank M. Reichert" <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
CC: "Lloyd Barron" <Lloyd@warbarron.com>,
"James Oyler" <constrct@micron.net>,
"Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>, <realtor@idahojoe.com>,
"Larry Fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>,
"Phyllis Schatz" <adelaide31@yahoo.com>,
"Rob Oates" <roates@sears.com>,
"Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>,
"Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>,
"Ronald G Wittig" <groverw@citlink.net>, <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

Greetings again Ron!

Ronald G Wittig posted to Liberty Northwest...

----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald G Wittig <groverw@citlink.net>
To: <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>; <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:32 AM
Subject: Fw: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph A. Rohner III" <realtor@idahojoe.com>
> To: "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; <Lhbeaty@prodigy.net>;
> <idaholibertarians@yahoogroups.com>; <frank.reichert@e-homebrew.com>;
> <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Dan Gookin" <dgookin@wambooli.com>
> Cc: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>; "Ron Wittig"
<groverw@citlink.net>;
> "Rob Oates" <robo1421@cableone.net>; "Phyllis Schatz"
> <adelaide31@yahoo.com>; "Patty Hautzinger" <Patzinger@earthlink.net>;
> "Michelle Eilers" <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>; "Lloyd Barron"
> <Lloyd@warbarron.com>; "larry fullmer" <lfullmer1@cableone.net>; "J. L.
> Oyler" <jlo@surfbest.net>; "Bill Anderson" <region2chair@lpidaho.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: okay, dan - Re: SICK FINE-POINT BULLSHIT!!.....

Ron, I don't see how airing the LP of Idaho's dirty laundry out in public on
Liberty Northwest is beneficial. Joe Rohner's remarks don't have much wider
(beyond Idaho) interest, as such, in overall libertarian dialogue. Just a
close look at the subject line seems to suggest this just doesn't seem to
fit here. Yea, I know where this originated, as do you. It's probably best
just to keep it there, where it belongs.

I'm not suggesting this was off-topic, only probably terribly inappropriate.

Kindest regards,
Frank